By Mayyar Almubarak Following the East India Company’s control over India for centuries, an inevitable imprint was perpetually left on their economy, setting off a chain reaction that cascaded into today’s economic and political climate. Exploitation, ethnic marginalisation, and an overall inefficient initial structuring of their economy created the foundations for a “kludgy” system - one in which the current system of governance and economy is failing its people. Whilst it may be easy to simply blame present-day leadership, the reality sets its roots further into history. The devastating progression of India’s economy from a British colony into what is labelled a modern-day “kludgeocracy” (term coined by Steven Teles) calls into question the severity of adverse continued impacts of colonialism in modern economies, and the way these impacts are plainly visible. India as a British colony was severely limited in terms of development. It is reported that India’s GDP per capita fell by over one-third from 1600 to 1871 as India increasingly came under British colonial rule (Broadberry, Custodis, and Gupta 2014, 1). The mere significance of this was not fathomable at the time, as they could not see the severe repercussions this would create in the future. The very living standards within the country faced steep decline – a decline that created a permanent scar on the country’s advancement. Even in the twenty-first century, as general standards of living are significantly higher than a few centuries ago, in India this remains unsteady and low. Colonial powers ensured that potential was capped and lives were tough, thus consequently limiting growth. For example, the series of Crown Oversights between 1773 and 1858 monopolised trade and retained control over the Indian economy. Furthermore, the Bengal Famine of 1770 was catastrophic; millions died, whilst the genetics of countless more were altered, creating epigenetics that lead to diabetes and heart problems present within the modern population of India. Such was the impact of the Bengal Famine: its effect continues to be present centuries later, detrimentally affecting the health and thus the employability of India’s future generations. Their contributions to the workforce will forever be hindered by the aftermath of a decades-old colonial policy, stumping the output of the country.  The burden of this is persistent within approximately 77 million members of the Indian population, and is predicted to rise. These issues simply would not be present had India not been colonised, conveying the continuous influence of a past colonial power. In addition to this, the introduction of the Doctrine of Lapse (1848) only furthered control through its annexation process, creating further instability within the economy. The question that arises surrounds the permissibility of one country to institute such destruction upon another. In total, according to Utsa Patnaik - an Indian economist - it is estimated that the British colonial powers looted the Indian colony of the modern-day equivalent of $45 trillion; a shocking figure and the possible key to fixing a broken economy. A good first step would be for the British government to pay reparations. Returning what is owed to India is integral in rectifying their mistakes. Further from this, redistribution of income and wealth would aid in wealth disparities within India, thus increasing living standards.  Today, the Indian economy is in shambles. Regardless of whichever programs and resources are instilled by the government – those poverty-ridden of the country seem to constantly face the prospect of being failed by a government that is simply not equipped to fix the overwhelming mass of issues. Approximately 60% of India’s 1.3 billion people live on less than $3.10 a day (Basu 2015). Under the British Raj, poverty intensified even further, thus creating the push for the surge of the Indian nationalist movement, “hindutva”.  In essence, the post-colonial impact on a less economically developed country, such as India, is clearly evident in the way its modern economy is structured and run. The long-term effects of colonialism are simply too persistent to dismiss; the epigenetics created as a result of colonialism, in addition to the high poverty rates, only further perpetuate this, as they reflect the dire, calamitous nature of a failing economy. Thus, a rigid kludgeocracy is said to be formed, wherein the inefficiencies of the system truly highlight its existence.

By Umar Zulkefli United Nations Climate Change Conference in Baku, Azerbaijan COP29, held in Azerbaijan’s oil-rich capital of Baku, felt more like a survival game than a climate conference. With political tensions, economic pressures, and fossil fuel interests dominating the agenda, the world’s most important climate talks teetered on the brink of collapse. Yet, after marathon negotiations and a dramatic walkout by vulnerable nations, delegates struck critical deals on climate financing packages and carbon markets. The summit’s outcome offers a glimpse of both hop e and the big challenges that lie ahead in the global climate fight. Wealthy Nations Commit $300 Billion for Climate Finance by 2035 The climate finance deal agreed by almost 200 countries at COP29 saw wealthy nations pledge to lead in providing “at least” $300 billion annually by 2035 to help developing countries cope with climate change. While this figure marked an improvement from the initial $250 billion proposal, it remained far below the $500 billion sought by the G77 group of developing nations and the $1.3 trillion experts estimate is necessary. Countries like India and small island nations voiced their frustration, calling the amount "paltry" and the timeline too slow to address urgent challenges. This new agreement will replace the previous commitment to provide $100 billion per year in climate finance by 2020, a goal that was met two years late, in 2022, and is set to expire in 2025. Political realities, including strained budgets in wealthier nations, shaped the modest outcome. Still, there was cautious optimism as the agreement emphasised innovative funding mechanisms, such as carbon levies on international shipping and aviation, offering a glimmer of hope for scaling up climate finance. Carbon Trading Markets Open with Loose Oversight At COP29, the carbon credit market was finally kick-started, a decade after the proposal was first sketched in the Paris Agreement. Trading could begin as soon as 2025, pending the finalization of details by technical bodies. This new framework allows nations and companies to trade credits for emissions reductions, providing a potential financial boost to climate action. The agreement overcame disagreements about the proposed UN registry, with compromises enabling the market’s launch. Countries like Bolivia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, home to heavily forested regions, emphasised that properly regulated markets could reverse environmental destruction. However, the system has drawn criticism, with a Nature Communications  study  revealed that less than 16% of carbon credits represent real emissions reductions, raising fears of “greenwashing,” as experts like Dr. Lambert Schneider warned that these integrity issues could spill into the Paris Agreement’s official UN system, undermining efforts to meet global climate targets. Ultimately, the agreement adopts a "buyer beware" approach, relying on transparency to deter bad practices while leaving room for refinement. The money raised by these carbon deals could help contribute to the climate finance needs of poorer countries, which economists estimated at $1.3tn a year. COP29’s Key Roadblocks: Trade Barriers and Petro-State Power COP29 underscored the enduring influence of fossil fuel-producing nations in global climate negotiations, with the summit marking the third consecutive year it was hosted by an oil-rich country. Azerbaijan’s president, alongside the OPEC secretary general, emphasised that oil and gas resources were "a gift from God," reinforcing the entrenched role of fossil fuels in the global economy. Efforts to build on COP28’s pledge to transition away from fossil fuels and triple renewable energy capacity this decade were significantly hindered, with Saudi Arabia reportedly playing a disruptive role. A Saudi official controversially attempted to amend critical text without consultation, while the country repeatedly sought to remove references to the “transition away from fossil fuels” agreed at COP28, citing concerns over energy security. Germany criticized the host nation and petro-states like Saudi Arabia and Russia for obstructing progress on the renewable energy agenda, further highlighting the deepening clash between national economic priorities and global climate goals. Simultaneously, trade policies emerged as a significant point of contention, with developing nations arguing that measures like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) imposed unfair costs on their economies. Acknowledging the growing intersection of climate and trade, delegates agreed to include these issues in future summits, signalling a step toward equitable decarbonization policies. Furthermore, negotiators sought to shield years of progress from the potential disruption of a second Trump presidency and a possible second US exit from the Paris Climate Agreement. The year 2035 chosen to meet the investment pledge by wealthier nations strategically aimed to delay U.S. re-engagement until after Trump, ensuring stability in global efforts while expanding the contributor base through voluntary commitments from major emitters like China. Together, these developments revealed the complex interplay of economic, political, and environmental interests shaping COP29’s outcomes. The COP29 summit in Baku exemplified the complexities of global climate politics, where progress was achieved against a backdrop of significant challenges. The contentious location, Trump’s re-election, and Argentina’s withdrawal all heightened uncertainty, underscoring the polarized views that undermine global trust and cooperation. Despite these obstacles, the summit’s ability to produce agreements on climate finance and carbon credit markets highlighted the enduring, if fragile, relevance of multilateral diplomacy. However, the incremental progress achieved at COP29 is far from sufficient. With the impacts of climate change intensifying, there is a pressing need for more ambitious action. The agreements reached must be strengthened, and commitments expanded at COP30 in Brazil, where the international community will have another chance to bridge the gap between ambition and action. As the world grapples with economic pressures and geopolitical turbulence, COP29 serves as a reminder of what is at stake. Unity, innovation, and greater commitments from all nations are essential to overcoming political and economic barriers. The climate crisis demands nothing less than bold, collective action to secure a sustainable future for all.

By Joshua Lloyd On the 30th October 2024, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves announced her vision for the economy with her edition of the yearly Autumn budget- the first for the Labour Party in 14 years. From the offset, Reeves made it clear that this is not a celebratory lap of a budget with a sole ambition to create flashy projects and to wave a magic wand. This can be seen from the beginning of the Autumn budget 2024 document, with Reeves quoted as saying the budget is “to fix the foundations of the economy and deliver change”. Fixing the foundations of the economy is certainly a noble conquest for anyone to frame their policy around, yet it is the measures she has pursued which bring into question whether or not this goal will be achieved. Whether the measures laid out can lead to a more prosperous Britain for the future is another question.  The headline changes were the increases in certain taxes totalling an increase of £40 billion. Chief amongst them, the Budget announced a 1.2p increase in employers’ national insurance contribution to 15p, alongside reducing the earning thresholds at which the tax takes effect. This increase is set to raise £25 billion a year. The decision has received backlash from businesses across industries, however I believe it may be a useful measure. The labour productivity of Britain has long lagged behind economies it aspires towards, currently being 18% lower than the United States. With this productivity gap, employers will have more incentive to upskill their workers with the increase in the contribution and to discourage the underemployment of their workforce with the decreased threshold. The decrease in wasted labour productivity can significantly reduce the burden, with an increase in productivity allowing for higher profits and less waste for businesses.The Office of Budget Responsibility were more cynical, stating that £9.7 billion could be offset through changing business practices, suggesting the approaches of businesses cutting salaries or reducing staff hours. Another area of changing tax law that came under scrutiny was the changing of business relief. The change in this is that from April 2026, inherited agricultural assets worth more than £1 million will be taxed at a 20% inheritance rate. Protests have erupted over this, with thousands of farmers making the trip to Westminster on the 19th of November. Thought is heavily divided on this issue. The Labour party and those supporting the changes argue that it is much needed reform. The top 1% own almost a quarter of all wealth in Britain and farmland is another aspect in which this has been taken advantage of. Billionaire inventor and owner of Dyson, Sir James Dyson, owns £612 million in net assets via his farming business Dyson farming and an estimated 36 thousand acres across Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire and Somerset. With an estimated net worth of £20 billion, I would argue the 20% rate on the farm land presents simply a fair contribution to the British treasury.  From the farmers perspective, the new change simply squeezes an already struggling generational business. The majority of farmers argue that farming as a business is one of being asset rich through land and livestock, yet cash poor due to tight margins and constantly rising costs of production. Since 2019, farming costs have risen significantly. According to the BBC, pig farming costs have risen by 54%, cattle has risen by 44% and cereal prices by 43%. These rising costs have not coincided with price rises reducing farming profitability, all whilst the plethora of EU subsidies have not been continued by the British government since Brexit. It is the traditional farming families that are most likely to be negatively affected. Buyers from non-farming backgrounds, such as the aforementioned Sir Dyson, have resulted in land value rising significantly, whilst farming as a livelihood has fallen dramatically year on year in profitability. A solution to this could perhaps be a more targeted approach to the tax, perhaps by only taxing over a certain threshold of which the farm can not have to sell off valuable agricultural assets to afford it. It can also be argued that the outrage has been enhanced for lobbying purposes in Westminster. Official farm business statistics state that only 34% of farms are worth less than £1 million, yet this is misleading, as the majority of farmers looking to pass on farms are married, which on top of personal allowances gives the tax free threshold up to nearly £3 million- far more generous than any other group in the United Kingdom. Schooling and education was another area of focus for Reeves, with a 19% real-term increase in investment. Constituents of this include £6.7 billion of capital investment into the Department of Education with £1.4 billion sidelined to rebuild the schools in the worst states. The increase in spending is in line with traditional Labour policies echoing Tony Blair’s “education, education, education” platform of 2001. With BBC headlines such as “Crumbling schools plagued by leaks and cold” in January 2024, this is much needed spending on the future of children in Britain. Another area regarding schooling that divided opinion was the 20% VAT rate being applied to private school fees. Smaller, specialist private schools are likely to be the worst affected with pupils turning down places, whilst big public school institutions are more likely to not face many issues when passing on the 20% rate to consumers. There is worry that, with the rising fees, a number of pupils may be pushed into the state sector for schooling, increasing pressure on already struggling schools. Labour themselves have predicted 35 thousand students will leave to join British state schools, with a further 2 thousand leaving to join schools abroad or in their home countries if international. Labour has also stated that the money raised should amount to training 6500 new teachers for state education. It is likely that areas will be affected very differently. Places like Surrey in which income is high has a strong foundation of private education, with relatively fewer state school places on offer, it is likely that it will be affected worse. Big schools are also large employers for certain areas, which if the VAT causes numbers to drop heavily, may create issues in unemployment. Other changes that have been made is a £22.6 billion increase in the day-to-day health budget in the hopes of finally reducing NHS waiting times. Alongside this, Labour have made more of a commitment to affordable housing with £5 billion of housing investment being spent for 2025-26. Pensions have also risen by 4.1% with the triple lock on pensions being confirmed for the coming year. In monetary terms this equates to an increase of £470.60 a year on full state pensions. Rachel Reeves has set out a bold outline of the economy she wants going forward with her role of Chancellor of the Exchequer. The talk of the £22 billion “black hole” inherited from the Conservative government has given legitimacy to the tax rises, particularly with national insurance. The tax rises should help to address this, yet there are questions as to whether the spending goes far enough to address the struggling state Britain finds itself in. Living standards have declined at the highest rate of any G7 country and the average person is still feeling the effect of the pandemic and in some cases, the effect of the 2008 financial crisis. The hope is that this budget should give the government the room needed to be more ambitious in subsequent years once the “black hole” is addressed- only time will tell. Public opinion has been mixed but not unexpected to the budget. Certain sectors have had significantly negative reactions, in particular, the large businesses who employ low-earning workers and the implication of the national insurance change, and farmers who have been hit with IHT changes. On the flip side, increases in the minimum wage and pensions, as well as the huge investment promises for the NHS and schooling have been celebrated. In my opinion, for the long term optimist, this talk of investment could well begin much needed changes into restoring public services and infrastructure that have long been neglected under years of austerity. It is now the job of the Labour government to not let that optimism go in vain.

By Nicholas Griffiths On the 24th of October, as a prelude to the Autumn budget, Rachel Reeves announced that Britain's fiscal rules would change. Moving from a Public Sector Net Debt (PSND) approach towards a Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities (PSNFL) approach, thus marking the ninth change to British fiscal rules in the last 16 years. The old PSND approach measured debt based on the amount of liquid financial assets (assets) versus deposits and currency and bonds and loans (liabilities). Which required that the debt as a percentage of GDP falls within the fifth year of the forecast period and that net borrowing should not exceed 3% of GDP within the same period. However, in light of the £22 billion blackhole found within treasury audits and not shared with the office for budget responsibility, there appeared to be little legroom for the Labour manifesto promises of increasing funding for public services, of greater investment in green energy, and of eventually raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. The new PSNFL approach redefines debt to include illiquid financial assets and liabilities, such as student loans or equity holdings within the Great British Energy national wealth fund. But, in some ways, the new approach is stricter, as the new rules will eventually require that this measure of debt falls within the third year of the forecast period and they limit the surplus/deficit to 0.5% from a balanced budget within the third year of the forecast period, encouraging stability while discouraging harsh austerity measures. As a result, Rachel Reeves managed to free up £49.1 billion in headroom, which helped to fund around £33 billion in investment (according to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) Economic and Fiscal Outlook report), and therefore helping to fix the foundations of the economy and secure long-run growth. Although the changes and increases in borrowing did spark a climb in gilt yields, it was far from a crash, as seen with the Lizz Truss mini-budget, as the promise of sustainable investment-led growth constrained by the fiscal rule appeared to appease the bond market. Nevertheless, this does not mean the new fiscal rules are without issue. For starters, in some ways, the new rules betray the purpose of fiscal rules as a gauge of the government's ability to repay its debt, because illiquid assets cannot self-evidently be quickly liquidated for repayment. Moreover, the measurements of debt do not even account for the physical assets such as infrastructure in energy and transport, that are needed to spark Britain's growth. The narrow time frame also leaves little room for the long-run effects on growth from these assets, with research from the OBR finding that only a fifth of the gains in output from public investment occur within the first five years. But despite these theoretical flaws, overall, the fiscal rules represent a positive direction for the new Labour government, because they still manage to provide the headroom to address the struggling state of the economy, whilst avoiding calamity in the bond markets like the mini-budget of 2022, with an assurance that the debt is still sustainable despite increased borrowing.

Long read by Hannah Gladwin Taiwan is a country within its own right. China continually disputes this, claiming Taiwan as its 23rd province. This is to strengthen its territorial integrity, solidifying its claim to the South China Sea. China desperately wants control in this region and is pursuing this through aggressive military action.  China wants the South China Sea to be Chinese rather than international, giving them power over this trading route, deterring Western powers from sailing through it. Rather than invading bordering countries such as the Philippines and Malaysia (who have as much of a claim to the sea as China does), China has dredged and reclaimed 3200 acres of land (Emmerson, D. K. 2016). This constructed land is used for Chinese military bases across the Sea acting as a physical deterrent to any other party wanting to dominate this region. This would solidify Chinese advantage in war in this region because it would be so well defended that the key weakness here would be Taiwan. Taiwan is militarily supported by the USA who have committed to defend Taiwan if invaded by China. However, the US will not attack unless provoked. Yet in recent times we have seen many threats from China to the safety of Taiwan that could be considered provocative where no physical action has been taken by the US. The People's Liberation Army (PLA, China’s national army) violated international law, flying 153 aircraft, 36 naval and coast guard ships around Taiwan on the 14th October (Hille, K, 2024). This could be interpreted as a drill from China on how they would invade Taiwan, but there was no reaction taken by the USA. This is concerning because this lack of response may suggest to China that the threat of US action is relatively low and they could take Taiwan unchallenged, accelerating any plans of attack they may already have. China has certainly advocated that this could be the case in the future because they have threatened to annex Taiwan if they continue to refuse Chinese control (Hille, 2024). President Xi Jinping’s initiative to achieve control of Taiwan is through ‘One China’, the idea that China and Taiwan are one country, two systems. Success of this initiative means China would control Taiwan’s defence and the US would no longer be able to project military force toward China from Taiwan. This is President Xi’s ideal, giving him full control over the South China Sea, a huge advantage in conflict. Yet the potential for the success of ‘One China’ through democratic agreement is delayed for the near future because the newest President of Taiwan Lai Ching-Te rejects ‘One China’. This means that if China wants to take Taiwan they will have to take it by force. Are we observing the precursor to this potential conflict in the recent actions of the PLA? The danger here is this could spark actual conflict in this region because the USA would have to support Taiwan. If the two greatest global superpowers go to war, where does that leave the rest of the world? Likely in a complex tangle of modern warfare.  Over the last few months Taiwan appears to have growing concern for the threat of China with Karen Kuo, a spokesperson for Taiwan’s President saying “we are facing an ever increasing military threat from China…Taiwan and other countries nearby are all continuing to strengthen their defences”(Sevastopulo, D., Hille, K., 2024). This is exactly what Taiwan is doing, by deepening their relationship with the US, especially with the new Trump administration. Taipei are serious about stepping up their defence against China. This suggests that the actions of the PLA have shaken Taiwan, making them question their safety. Therefore, they have chosen to retaliate through building their own defence. This expresses the stubbornness of Taiwan against Chinese control because China has the largest army and navy in the world yet Taiwan feels they can challenge this rather than surrender to China through the support of the USA. Taiwan is considering buying a big package of US weapons. However, would this just create more unease in the China - Taiwan relationship?  China is likely to feel challenged by this action and may choose to retaliate with further drills, inching the region ever closer to war. This measure is supported by a former Pentagon official who has been vocal in urging Taiwan to step up (Sevastopulo, D., Hille, K., 2024). Therefore, the threat is internationally recognised, as their ally agrees that the threat has increased and Taiwan needs further protection. The US support of Taiwan currently acts as a deterrent against China in invading Taiwan, including the US being Taiwan’s biggest arms supplier. However, the new Trump administration has given signs of this support faltering which would only encourage Xi Jinping into achieving his goal. This could be incredibly dangerous, empowering China through landmass allowing control of the sea their land surrounds. Taiwan has been clear in showing that they want continued support from the US in defending themselves against China yet the new Trump administration doesn't seem as keen. Trump has said that ‘Taiwan should pay the US for defence’, (Sharma, S. 2024) making the US appear more like a service than an ally. This makes the safety of Taiwan precarious, suggesting the US could be bought off perhaps even by China to weaken Taiwan’s defensive position. Relations between the US and Taiwan were strained further when Trump accused Taiwan of taking advantage of the US semiconductor industry (Sharma, S. 2024). This is a contentious topic which has already sparked trade wars between the US and China, a further source of political instability between the superpowers. This instability stretching to Taiwan could be detrimental to the US and Taiwan relationship because it breaks down trading relationships and therefore weakens incentives for the US to support Taiwan. This could mean China would take this opportunity to bribe the US out of Taiwan. Xi has hinted at a better or more civil relationship with the US - ‘History teaches us that China and the US gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation’ (Sharma, S. 2024). This could be President Xi’s way of sweetening the US to provide hope of a defenceless future for Taiwan. Is China capable of taking Taiwan? The Chinese military, also known as the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is formidable, with 2 million personnel and the largest army and navy in the world (The Economist, 2023). However, in the case of the PLA, this may be quantity over quality. Xi criticises the army for suffering a ‘peace disease’, from an almost complete lack of combat experience (The Economist, 2023). The army is in the completely wrong state to be launching an attack on Taiwan. Perhaps in the long term, this may be a possibility with Xi currently completely overhauling the PLA, training in real combat, and aiming to be a world-class fighting force by 2035. However, this cannot be the plan in the short term. In Lieutenant-General He Lei’s words, “We can’t go to war to improve our combat experience, right?”  (The Economist, 2023) . If China came to a position where it could and wanted to invade Taiwan it could be incredibly dangerous. With China having ‘control’ of the South China Sea and the US committed to protecting Taiwan under invasion this could lead to a war between the two economic rivals. Therefore, China most certainly has the resources to take Taiwan. It is just whether it has the ability. However, the recent drills off the coast of Taiwan show that the ability and physical capability of the PLA are improving making them not only the largest but working towards being the World's most able army. This creates a dangerous outlook for the future of our world if power hungry China has the power to take whatever they want. This suggests that if war occurs, it may not just be the US and China but could even be WW3.  Taiwan hangs in a state of uncertainty, China is signalling their message loud and clear that they believe Taiwan is theirs yet Taiwan still remains to be its own country. The threat however is ever increasing and China appears closer to invasion with every drill or military action. Taiwan can only hope that their American safety net prevails and endures through the new administration. We cannot yet be certain but the likelihood of Taiwan falling to China feels ever increasing.  References The Economist. (2023). ‘How scary is China?’. The Economist .   Vol. 449. Number 9371. pp. 12.   The Economist. (2023). ‘Unknown soldiers’. The Economist. Vol. 449. Number 9371. pp. 8 Emmerson, D. K. Stanford University, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. (2016). ‘Why does China want to control the South China Sea?’. [online]. Available at:   Why does China want to control the South China Sea? | FSI ( stanford.edu ) . (Accessed 29/11/2023).  Hille, K. Financial Times. (2024) ‘China’s show of force in massive military exercises alarms Taiwan’. [online]. Available at: China’s show of force in massive military exercises alarms Taiwan . (Accessed 17/11/2024)  Hille, K., Sevastopulo, D. Financial Times (2024). ‘Taiwan considers big US defence purchases as overture to Donald Trump’. [online]. Available at: Taiwan considers big US defence purchases as overture to Donald Trump . (Accessed 17/11/2024).  Sharma, S. The Independent. (2024). ‘What Trump’s election victory means for Taiwan and China’. [online]. Available at: What Trump’s election victory means for Taiwan and China . (Accessed 17/11/2024).

By Euan Sinnott The S&P 500, an index that tracks the performance of the largest 500 American public companies, last week recorded a fresh record high, climbing 4.66% for the week; the best weekly performance for the index in a year. The Russell 2000, which tracks smaller American public companies, rose an even greater 8.75%. Bitcoin also crossed the $80,000 mark for the first time ever, and the dollar also strengthened slightly. This strong performance is more impressive when you consider the election was widely seen to be a tossup, meaning at least some of the gains were already priced in. Markets believe that a Trump Presidency, with Republicans also controlling Congress, will mean lower taxes, less regulation and easier dealmaking. Markets also dislike uncertainty, and while it remains to be seen exactly what Trump will do in his second term, having the winner been clear on election night, and avoiding a messy and protracted post-election period in the event the vote was closer, was something well received by markets. The Biden administration led an aggressive charge against corporate mergers, believing them to often harm consumers and competing firms. The FTC and DOJ under Biden sued to block mergers, amongst others, between Spirit and Frontier Airlines; Microsoft and Activision Blizzard; and Kroger and Albertson’s – two large supermarkets. This aggressive trustbusting was welcomed by progressives, and even some conservatives, but was met with disdain on Wall Street, who felt actions by the FTC and DOJ hurt American dynamism and added costs for companies. Some of the biggest winners from the surge in markets last week were investment banks, like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, who both rose over 10% last week, on the expectation of an M&A boom under Trump. The Trump administration is also thought to have abandoned the bid to break up Google, although the case was started during his first term, citing the need to compete with China. The biggest critics of the Biden administration’s approach to mergers were often found in Silicon Valley. And while many notable tech figures have shifted to the right, either outright becoming Trump supporters or moving away from the Democratic party, Trump has in the past been highly critical of ‘Big Tech’. So the approach to mergers within the tech industry is yet to be clear. Beyond a change in approach to mergers, a second term of Trump is likely to mean lower corporate taxes, as well as more deregulation. In his first term, Trump cut the headline corporate tax rate to 21%, down from the 35% it had been previously. Harris had proposed to raise the rate to 28%, and Trump has mooted cutting it to 15%. Goldman Sachs has estimated that such a move would increase S&P profits by 4%. Trump has also promised to eliminate tax on tips, social security payments, overtime and even car interest payments. All of these moves should increase consumer spending if implemented. But, they will be expensive and potentially distortionary, so it is debatable whether these will actually clear Congress. Yields on 10-year treasuries were little changed, at around 4.45%. But in the short run, treasuries will likely move more in reaction to what the Fed, rather than what Trump does. But, if fresh tax cuts, as well as an extension of the 2017 tax cuts are not offset by spending cuts, markets may lose confidence in the US’ ability to pay back its debt. Deficits are currently running at 6% of GDP, a staggering figure considering the US is not in recession, or experiencing an economic shock. An expansionary fiscal policy also risks stoking inflation. The stimulus bill Biden signed after entering office is estimated by economists to account for about a  third of the inflation surge  in 2021-22, so there are risks to running high deficits. In terms of changes to taxes, Trump has also notably proposed a blanket 20% tariff on all imported goods, as well as a 60% tariff on Chinese goods. He has even proposed eliminating income tax and replacing it with tariffs, although this is very unlikely to occur. Such a move would lead to price increases for consumers, and would hurt US firms that rely on imports, or global companies that ship their goods to America. But, while many firms would be badly hit by a 20% or 60% tariff, markets did not appear to worry much about this threat. Shares in firms like Nike and Apple, that are reliant on manufacturing their goods in Asia, were little changed. This likely reflects a scepticism that Trump’s tariff plans will actually be implemented. During his first run for the White House, the President-elect often chastised America’s trading relationship with China, as well as free trade deals such as Nafta, which was between the US, Canada and Mexico. But while Trump promised to majorly renegotiate the deal, seeing it as being unfair to the American workers, particularly in the Midwest; the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement that replaced Nafta was little different to the deal it superseded. A blanket 20% would be very inflationary, and likely politically unpopular if introduced. Considering how badly the 2021-22 inflation surge hit Kamala Harris during the election, many assume Trump is bluffing to get a better deal from other countries. This may be true, but even a half-implemented or temporarily implemented broad-based tariff could significantly harm many firms. Markets are likely too optimistic about the risks Trump poses to global trade. One must also consider that the President does not need the approval of Congress to raise tariffs. Overall, Wall Street is on balance right to welcome Trump’s return. The stock market performed well during his first term, rising 70% to record highs, despite the pandemic. Lower taxes, more M&A and less regulations should boost corporate profits and help the market grow further. But there are still significant risks to a second Trump term, namely increased tariffs and uncertain and sometimes erratic policymaking.

Joshua Lloyd The end of September showed a worrying statistic for China’s economic growth. In the three months to the end of September, GDP grew by 4.6% on an annual basis. Whilst initially seeming a statistic to celebrate, this marks the second quarter in which China has missed their 5% annual GDP growth target. The reason this high growth target is so important in China is as a result of both demographics, and its issues with domestic consumption. On the demographic front, the next decade is set to have 300 million people in the 50 to 60 age group leave the workforce. Pension funds are running low in China, with a pre-pandemic 2019 estimate from the state-run Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, estimating the country’s main pension fund to run out by 2035. With this, China is already looking to raise the retirement age for the first time since the 1950s, with an increase from 60 to 63 for men. However, this still remains one of the lowest in the world. A strong component in causing this issue was the decades-long one-child policy.  Whilst China still maintains its position as the world's largest exporter, domestically, sluggish consumption has caused significant problems in the Chinese economy. Low levels of household income and a high level of income inequality act as a constraint upon consumption. Household consumption as a share of GDP is 39%, far below that of OECD economies which average out at 54%. The desire to go out and spend can not even be spurred by the threat of inflation. Despite a reported 2-3% target rate of inflation, the CPI increased by 0.4% from a year in September, lower than the 0.6% rise in August. This raises the possibility of deflation, which would harm consumption levels even further as the opportunity of cheaper goods discourages spending. The ongoing housing crisis, which has persisted since 2020, has caused other issues with consumer confidence, with new house prices falling 5.3% from a year before in August 2024. Deeply indebted developers have led to half- complete crumbling apartment blocks and putting a strain on the financial system. It is with these issues that China has started implementing a large amount of monetary and fiscal stimulus into the economy in grasping that 5% target rate. China’s central bank has cut interest rates in search of the magic 5% and in order to prevent debt-ridden property owners from reaching bankruptcy. Alongside this, other measures include debt swaps for local governments, reduced property market regulation and efforts to bolster the stock market. It remains to be seen whether these efforts will have the strong effect needed to get the Chinese economy back on track. For a sizable contingent of economists, the answer seems like a downright no- with The Guardian’s George Magnus going as far as to call it “the very definition of economic insanity”. In my opinion, ‘economic insanity’ is a step too far and the measures demonstrate that China is willing to take steps to address the issue. The current measures however, are not far enough, and if China hopes to avoid a Japanese style deflationary spiral and to avoid the 2020s being a ‘lost decade’ for the Chinese, more aggressive monetary and fiscal measures must be taken.

Mayyar Almubarak Imperfections are inevitable in every economic system. However, this calls into question the  extent to which these imperfections should continue to be tolerated. When these imperfections begin to create divisions within our societies, and negatively impact the quality of life of individuals, it is plausible to assume that the time has come to make a change. In the modern economy, a cycle of poverty exists that traps victims in a vicious cycle of marginalisation and limits ambition. Why does this cycle of poverty exist? Is it possible to eliminate it   altogether, or is it intrinsically integrated into the structure of the economy? The poverty cycle, a persistent factor in the developed economy, is a trap wherein those who find themselves in poverty seem to be stuck in it. As a result, it is extremely difficult to access opportunities to pull themselves above the poverty line. It can be argued that the very existence of the poverty cycle is a direct result of inadequate access to educational resources - a strong correlation exists between those facing poverty, and members of society with low literacy rates, as ‘low levels of literacy result in low employment rates and lower wages. Not having literacy skills usually makes it impossible for an individual to break out of the intergenerational cycles of poverty’ (Lewis 186). Thus, this renders it almost impossible for those in poverty to make a change, because they do not possess the very basic foundational resources required to develop their skill set, and more importantly, they do not have the means to acquire these resources even if they wanted to. It is evident that there is a paradoxical, systemic problem that creates a loophole for those living in poverty. Furthermore, this restricts the opportunities they are able to provide for their children, creating even larger barriers within the next generation as they are unable to fund their ambitions, thus putting a cap on their potential. How can this be fixed? Although it is clear that literacy rates play a vital role in perpetuating the persistence of the poverty cycle, one may question how heavy the burden of responsibility is on the individual; can it be argued that the fault lies solely on the system? With an ever-increasing cost of living, alongside a fixed insufficient minimum wage, the economy itself essentially paves the way for poor living standards - a fault incited by the state. Moreover, class divisions and the wealth gap further perpetuate this issue: in essence, the rich get richer whilst the poor get poorer, and therefore, as the upper class betters their access to wealth-inducing opportunities, the working class remain stuck in a cycle of disinclusion and lack of access to resources. Evidently, this is out of the control of members of the working class as opportunities simply become out of reach - exhibiting the way in which the issue arises from the very structure of the system. This intensifies the other factors that contribute to the cycle of poverty, such as geographic marginalisation and social exclusion as a result of discrimination; both of which are out of the hands of individuals themselves, thus conveying the integral problems in the system itself that lead to the poverty trap. Therefore, as dangerous as the poverty trap is, the solution is not as basic as simply “getting educated”. Perhaps the reason behind this lies in the fact that the inequality of society persists even through the education system; in 2019 only 51% of disadvantaged pupils reached the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared to 71% for all other pupils. Moreover, the education system as a whole, regardless of class, can be said to lack strong ties with employment industries, thus ensuring that pathways are rarely formed between education and employment - hindering job opportunities. Even with an education, it is simply not enough to escape poverty.  The solution might be to rely on external intervention, whether through the government or NGOs. Providing easy access to resources such as education and accessible job opportunities might help alleviate the pressure of poverty for individuals. Policies such as the Welfare Reform Act 2012 provide universal credit, and so are able to sustain people living in less fortunate circumstances. But this only goes so far. Inevitably, a change in the system is required, such as fixing the problem of economic inequality and class struggles, in addition to tackling root causes of disinclusion and discrimination. The very structure of the modern economy creates a separation in which class mobility becomes nearly unachievable, and rising above the poverty line requires resources that are simply not available to individuals. In a theoretical restructure of the economy, it might be possible to eradicate the very concept of the poverty trap through not pouring money and resources into a temporary fix, but instead fixing the already available resources - such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure - and making them more equally accessible to everyone in a society. For example, providing universal health care in addition to implementing income maintenance programs are possible first steps towards addressing the issue, ensuring that those in poverty never face the issue of being stuck in it, in addition to lifting them above the poverty line. In conclusion, it is evident that the poverty cycle demonstrates that there is something inherently wrong with the system as a whole. Whilst it may be true that the poverty trap is not completely inescapable, this is very difficult to achieve individually, in addition to the fact that some people simply do not have the means to achieve this. Some possible solutions may exist that could help fix part of the issue, but this may solely rely on external factors due to the fact that the poverty cycle is a systemic problem. If, somehow, the system can be fixed, then it would be plausible to assume that the poverty trap - a by-product of the system - could also potentially be fixed. Overall, the modern economy requires intense structural changes, but the degree to which this is possible remains uncertain.

Opinion - Hannah Gladwin High interest rates and quantitative tightening have been the norm in tackling the inflationary struggle in the UK since 2022. Two years later this remains to be the case, despite inflation being at 1.7%, below the government's 2% target. For now, this is not a concern of the Chancellor because it is within 0.5 percentage points of the target, yet if the downward trend continues then questions must be asked to the Monetary Policy Committee as to why this is the case.  Bank rate was held at 5.25% for almost a year, and subsequently held at 5% for the last two committee meetings. However, the economy has evidently responded and inflation’s downward trend continues. Is it wrong that the MPC is holding interest rates high for this extended period of time? Damaging the business prosperity of the country, singling out variable rate mortgage payers? Some would say this is absolutely the case arguing that low interest rates are essential to the growth of the economy. However, I believe high and stable interest rates pave the way to regaining the UK’s macroeconomic stability. We cannot collapse the bank rate, the moment we see success, it would unwind the progress of the MPC, creating instability and damaging expectations. To steady inflation we also must steady expectations in the economy. If households and firms recognise that interest rates may soon fall they will delay investments until they become cheaper, whether this be huge business investments or individuals taking out a mortgage. This has the potential to stagnate the economy, running the risk of recession. Therefore, the MPC must manage these expectations keeping conditions in the economy stable whilst ensuring macroeconomic conditions do not falter. Keeping interest rates high but reducing them gradually manages expectations preventing the risk of shocks to the economy. Therefore, I believe the MPC are taking a measured response to the bank rate providing they remain on the trajectory of reducing the bank rate overtime. Interest rates had been held below 1% since the financial crisis but were brought above this figure for the first time in June 2022. According to a general monetary transmission mechanism, it takes eighteen months to two years for a MPC decision to filter through the economy and impact the inflation rate. We can tell by the figures above this has been the case and therefore this prolonged policy decision has had the desired effect. Therefore, some would argue that the policy has been in place long enough for the economy to react and it is time for interest rates to become stable again. This suggests that the decisions of the MPC today will dictate the inflation rate into 2026, so could we be damaging the economy of the future by trying to manage the economy of today? Interest rates had been held below 1% since the financial crisis but were brought above this figure for the first time in June 2022. According to a general monetary transmission mechanism, it takes eighteen months to two years for a MPC decision to filter through the economy and impact the inflation rate. We can tell by the figures above this has been the case and therefore this prolonged policy decision has had the desired effect. Therefore, some would argue that the policy has been in place long enough for the economy to react and it is time for interest rates to become stable again. This suggests that the decisions of the MPC today will dictate the inflation rate into 2026, so could we be damaging the economy of the future by trying to manage the economy of today? However, this argument returns to the idea of expectations and how essential these are in dictating the inflation rate. If the MPC looked solely at inflation rates of that month and made the interest rate decision from this then interest rates would be significantly lower. But they must consider how individuals are going to react. If interest rates suddenly dropped, short term consumption and investment in the economy could rocket, pushing inflation back up to unsustainable levels. Therefore, the MPC must take this into consideration and ensure they take the approach which will have the steadiest impact on the economy. The MPC have in fact confirmed this is the action they will be taking; ‘Monetary policy will need to continue to remain restrictive for sufficiently long until the risks to inflation return sustainably to the 2% target in the medium term’.  This idea of prolonged restrictive monetary policy is where quantitative tightening is significant. The MPC began this policy in February 2022, and the overall aim is to bring down long term interest rates. Therefore, the MPC have the tools to manage inflation in both the medium and longer term allowing them to ensure macroeconomic stability into the future. They are controlling the expectation in the long term minimising the possibility of shock to the economy.  Overload, is what current monetary policy appears to be on the surface, yet this overload is necessary in ensuring a successful route to a stable economy, despite how it appears that inflation is under control the MPC must solidify this success.

Did hosting the World Cup in 2014 actually help Brazil, and where is their economy now? Dan Irvine Brazil is a country with a strong culture, many world class footballers and poor governance. Ten years after hosting the world cup, we will examine whether this has had a positive impact on economic outcomes. Hosting the 2014 World Cup is yet to suggest positive returns for the wider Brazilian economy.  Robert Baade introduced a number of explanations why hosting sporting events doesn’t actually make you rich. Leakages depict the false narrative that building these stadiums can allow for ‘trickle down effects’. The truth is, many Brazilians were shunted from their homes to allow these vast stadiums to be built. Now, these stadiums are falling into disrepair. The cost to maintain these stadiums is extortionate and inefficient as 50,000 capacity stadiums used for the World Cup are being used for fourth tier Brazilian stadiums now. Furthermore, the term ‘crowding out’ was used to describe the existing demand in the economy regardless of the sporting event. In this case, there was actually a net negative for demand statistics released by the Brazilian government. $1.6bn was spent during the world cup, but $4.4bn was spent abroad during this period. For Brazilians that don’t like football (I know, there can’t be many), escaping the mania was in the forefront of their mind. It is estimated that income from tourists accounted for 2.5% of the total cost of hosting the World Cup.  Corruption has been a major factor in the slowdown of Brazil’s economy. In Brazil, there is social unrest from the exorbitant sum spent on the world cup and the Rio Olympics two years after. It is estimated that the cost of hosting these sporting events would have alleviated absolute poverty for 50 million people. Brazil’s export driven economy in the late 90’s and early 2000’s made it look more developed than it actually was. The political mismanagement and corruption made very little change to the real economy. 2015 brought about the largest corruption scandal in history. $2.1bn of public funds was mismanaged. All of this greed compounded over the years since 2005, which is when the first investigation started, to the point now where Brazil’s reputation on the global stage is severely undermined. This does make it less attractive for international businesses to set up shop in the country. It effectively cuts off investment into the country, which could allow for major innovation and help Brazil develop alongside its BRICS counterparts. Until Brazil can rebuild faith in the political system and in public officials, it will continue its decline. The uncovering of operation car wash coincided with a drop in commodity prices, further exacerbating the downwards trend of the Brazilian economy. It goes to show that being dependent on primary resource extraction is very volatile, and for the health of the wider economy, it is extremely risky. Barry Eichengreen suggests a way for countries to escape the middle income trap. Innovation in key industries. Brazil’s labour force has been subject to massive brain drain, with the political unrest giving an excuse to move elsewhere. Without skilled labour, this process becomes that much harder. Brazil’s geography is problematic to say the least. The amazon rainforest makes it very hard to transport goods across Brazil, and as their economy is reliant on primary resources, such as oil, sugar, soybeans and iron, this decreases the global competitiveness of exports. To ship goods to Asia, which has been and is a very strong export partner for Brazil, either goods must go through the Drake passage or through the Panama canal. This added difficulty does mean Brazilian exports are less attractive. China was a prominent export partner during the 2008 global financial crisis, where China implemented massive stimulus programmes and undertook large infrastructure projects. This was made possible by countries such as Brazil, Canada and Australia, who exported vast amounts of construction materials. Now that demand from China has cooled due to internal issues, Brazil does find itself in a precarious situation. The added complexity of the effects of Dutch disease, where the only viable industry becomes oil. Alongside political mismanagement, speculation has already started that Brazil could end up like Venezuela. There is significant downward pressure on the Brazilian real, which does help an export driven economy.  Although Brazil has been painted to have a bleak future, it doesn’t have to be this way. A massive restructuring of the political system must take place, so that international business can be opened up and Brazil can develop and engage in higher value adding exports to drive sustainable growth.

Umar Zulkefli The luxury sector, long fueled by robust consumer demand, is now facing challenges as global consumption patterns shift. LVMH, the world’s largest luxury conglomerate, recently reported a sharper-than-expected decline in third-quarter sales, driven primarily by weakening demand in China. Shares in the group, which owns iconic brands like Louis Vuitton and Dior, dropped after revenues fell 3%, with sales in Asia (excluding Japan) plummeting 16%. This reflects broader concerns about the Chinese economy, where slowing growth, a slumping housing market, and declining consumer confidence are hitting high-end spending. China, once a powerhouse of growth for luxury brands, is now presenting a more subdued outlook. While the country posted a 4.6% year-on-year economic expansion in the third quarter, this was below the government’s full-year target and signals faltering momentum. Beijing has rolled out stimulus measures to support the economy, but so far, these efforts have failed to reignite consumer demand in key sectors like luxury goods. The pressure isn’t confined to China. Kering, LVMH’s main competitor and owner of brands like Gucci, has seen its stock fall by more than 40% this year, with Gucci sales expected to drop 23% year-on-year. In response, the luxury market is facing a significant “reset” as consumers rethink spending priorities. Analysts point to overreliance on price hikes to drive growth, with brands like Dior increasing prices on key products such as the Lady Dior bag by 50% and the Dior Saddle Bag by 20% (between 2020 and 2023), now struggling to justify those costs to a more cautious customer base. In contrast, the U.S. luxury market is showing surging resilience, despite slowing job growth and rising debt delinquencies. American consumers continue to spend, buoyed by declining gasoline prices and a strong stock market. However, economists warn that the drop in personal savings rates could signal trouble ahead, with future consumer spending potentially becoming unsustainable. As luxury brands grapple with these shifting dynamics, the challenge will be sustaining growth while maintaining brand desirability in an increasingly uncertain global economic landscape. However, there are glimmers of hope from China’s recent stimulus package. The country’s stock market saw a record turnover of Rmb3.48tn ($141bn) in early October, highlighting renewed investor enthusiasm following government interventions. With additional reforms aimed at boosting corporate governance and liquidity, China’s policy measures are beginning to show signs of success. If these efforts continue to gain traction, they could help restore consumer confidence and stimulate demand, offering the overall economy and also luxury brands (like Kering) a chance to regain lost ground in one of their most critical markets.

Euan Sinnot The nascent technology’s insatiable need for power is leading tech giants, keen to keep to their climate goals, to strike deals to reopen and build reactors across America . The AI boom has taken the world by storm, and left tech companies scrambling to build out the most advanced models to try and capture as much of the industry as possible. Tech giants are all-in on an AI future, with the five largest tech companies spending a staggering $59bn  in capex in the last quarter alone, up 63% year-over-year. But this money is not just being spent on engineers and programmers - tech companies now need vast amounts of energy to power their data centres, something they have been increasingly turning to nuclear energy for. Data centres power much of the internet, and are needed to train and operate AI models, including large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI’s GPT-4. These complex models require both larger amounts and more advanced computers and processors to operate. This means that tech companies need to buy a lot more electricity. In 2022, AI was estimated by the IEA to have consumed around twice as much energy as all of Britain. This will only accelerate, with the amount of energy required by data centres projected to more than double by 2030. This has led tech giants to look to strike deals with energy producers to ensure a reliable and affordable supply of electricity for their data centres. Complicating matters, all major technology companies have ambitious climate goals – Microsoft and Google promise to be net zero carbon emitters by 2030. Traditionally, these companies have looked to solar and wind to fulfil their energy needs while maintaining their green credentials. But, both are intermittent, and Microsoft cannot afford to have their servers shut down when the wind isn’t blowing – so tech companies have begun to look for alternatives. When it comes to continually-running, reliable energy, there are only two real options – fossil fuels (usually gas), or nuclear fission. However, efforts in climate mitigation mean that tech companies dislike the former, leading the latter as the best placed option.  The most notable example of AI’s impact on nuclear power is Microsoft’s recent deal to purchase electricity from a reopened Three Mile Island Power Plant, in Pennsylvania. Three Mile Island was previously operational until 2019, but shut down because of high running costs. The power plant is notable for being the site of a partial nuclear meltdown of one of its reactors, which led to it closing for six years. There were no deaths or injuries, but there was still a large, yet misinformed growth in opposition to nuclear power in the US, both nationally, and amongst residents near Three Mile Island. This led to increased regulations driving up costs, and a stagnation in nuclear power. Since the mid-1980s, nuclear has made up about a fifth of America’s electricity mix, but there has been little growth in generation. But, there is evidence that the tide is turning when it comes to nuclear power. In 2023, Gallup  found that 62% of Republicans, 56% of Independents and 46% of Democrats supported nuclear power , the greatest level of public support nuclear has had in the last decade. As climate change has raised in saliency amongst Democrats, but support for big-spending initiatives like the Green New Deal has faltered, promoting nuclear has become an increasingly popular solution to decarbonising the grid amongst policymakers. The Biden Administration has been supportive of nuclear, and recently announced  a $900mn investment into small nuclear reactors. This renaissance in nuclear energy comes at an ideal time for tech companies’ sudden demand for reliable power that aligns with sustainability objectives. As w ell as deals to take on electricity from full-scale reactors, tech companies are also getting in on the small modular reactors (SMRs) train, with Amazon recently announcing  a $500mn investment in a Virginian project. SMRs are much smaller than conventional reactors, and can therefore fit in more locations. They can also be prefabricated, which makes construction much easier and cheaper. While the technology is in its early stages, tech firms are natural investors in them, as they are looking for ways to power their data centres sustainably for decades to come, and have vast amounts of available capital to invest with. The growth in nuclear power as a result of the AI boom shows how the expansion in Artificial Intelligence is changing the world economy beyond just the tech sector. Nuclear, as the only power source that is zero carbon, all-weather running, and suitable in most climates, will play a crucial role in decarbonisation, and investments from tech firms in nuclear both shows their enormous and growing financial muscle, as well how impactful AI may be on the broader economy. Nuclear becoming cheaper and more flexible, via the development of SMRs, is also undoubtedly a good thing for consumers, as well as society at-large. Outside of the US, investment in nuclear power by tech companies has been more venture-focused, rather than large-scale agreements to take on electricity from existing or planned plants. This mainly reflects a more negative attitude towards nuclear in many European countries - where most data centres operated by large tech firms outside of the US are located. Germany, for instance has fully phased out nuclear from its grid, and Spain is currently in the process of turning off all its nuclear reactors. In the UK, nuclear has stagnated, with the last nuclear plant opening nearly twenty years ago. The main exception to this is France, which generated 64% of its electricity from nuclear . But, as this is all operated by the state-owned EDF, there is little room for private-sector investment. A very interesting and well researched article. Would you be able to mention at the end about how this might go beyond the US? Will other countries also be  able to harness nuclear energy. Please reference your stats