Reeves Defends UK Economic Choices as She Touts Public Spending
By
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves will defend her fiscal choices and trumpet billions of pounds of infrastructure investment in the UK spending review on Wednesday, as Keir Starmer's government seeks to regain momentum after a faltering first year in power.
Reeves will detail government spending plans through to the end of the decade, laying out how hundreds of billions of pounds will be allocated to investments in transport links and energy projects, and rebuilding hospitals and schools. She'll also lay out plans to direct £39 billion ($53 billion) of public money over 10 years to an affordable homes plan, the Treasury said late Tuesday in a statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Crystal Palace FC Backer Eagle Files Confidentially for US IPO
Eagle Football Holdings Ltd., one of the most active investors in football clubs globally, has filed confidentially for a US initial public offering. The company, which owns more than 40% of English FA Cup winners Crystal Palace, has submitted a draft registration statement to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, according to an announcement Friday. Eagle has been working with UBS Group AG on the potential IPO, Bloomberg News reported in February.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
US-China Trade Talks: The Limits Of Diplomacy
Delegations of China and the U.S. pose for a group photo prior to the first meeting of the ... More China-U.S. economic and trade consultation mechanism in London, Britain, June 9, 2025. The meeting opened here on Monday. Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, attended the meeting with U.S. representatives. (Photo by Li Ying/Xinhua via Getty Images) In early June 2025, officials from the U.S. and China convened in an attempt to to prevent salvage economic ties from spiraling out of control and causing significant damage to both economies. Talks took place in London's historic Lancaster House, as they sought to rescue an earlier negotiated tariff truce and defuse escalating export controls. The negotiations aimed to extend the 90-day pause on punitive tariffs agreed in Geneva, revive cross-border trade flows, and hammer out a framework on rare-earth minerals and high-end technology exports. However, the talks ultimately accomplished few tangible benefits that President Trump sought to originally gain from the implementation of these tariffs, namely to stem the flow of fentanyl, motivate companies to reshore to the US, and close the trade deficit. Instead, he temporarily paused these measures by both sides and returned to the dynamics prior to his 'Liberation Day' and the imposition of tariffs globally. The June 9 to 10 London talks — led by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and USTR Jamieson Greer from the U.S. and China's Vice Premier He Lifeng and Commerce Minister Wang Wentao — were convened against a backdrop of deep mutual distrust. Since 2018, the two sides have imposed tit-for-tat duties, with U.S. tariffs on Chinese exports staying around 19-21% from the end of Trump's first term until the beginning of his second, and Beijing following suit with…. After Liberation Day, US tariffs reached a high of 145% before decreasing to 30%, while Beijing imposed a retaliatory tariff of 125% before settling at its current level of 10%.These actions have stifled more than $600 billion in bilateral trade and rattled global markets. At the same time, The Trumps' administration's erratic and inconsistent messaging has also allowed for Wall Street to start pricing in volatility. Moreover a new TACO theory emerged, 'TACO or Trump Always Chickens Out.' This asserts that despite Trumps tough trade policy rhetoric, when markets become too volatile Trump will always reverse course. US Reliance on Critical Rare Earth Metals US Reliance on Rare Earth Imports from China In April 2025, China further escalated tensions by instituting a requirement of export licenses for critical rare-earth minerals, resulting in a 20% year-on-year decrease in shipments to the U.S. and Europe. Due to China's dominance in rare earth exports to the US, this triggered alarms in various industries, most notably in the electric vehicle and aerospace sector. Meanwhile, Washington broadened its export curbs on advanced semiconductors, chip-making equipment, and aerospace components, with a particular intensification after the two countries' Geneva talks, amplifying China's sense of economic siege. Despite the high stakes, negotiators emerged from London with only a modest 'interim framework' rather than a sweeping accord. However, Trump still claimed in a Truth Social post that 'the relationship is excellent.' The enthusiasm from the president is in large part due to China agreeing to temporarily grant export licenses for rare-earth magnets and related components, enabling U.S. automakers such as Ford, GM, and Stellantis to replenish inventories after April's curbs. At the same time, the U.S. stopped short of lifting its tech export restrictions on AI chips and aerospace tools. Commerce Secretary Lutnick characterized the outcome as 'putting meat on the bones' of the May Geneva deal, while Ministry of Commerce spokesperson He Yidong stated the two sides reached a consensus framework to 'implement the important understandings' reached during the June 5 phone call between Trump and Xi. From an economic perspective, the London agreement delivered a short-lived reprieve. Following reports of the rare-earth license concession, global equity markets ticked higher, echoing relief seen after the Geneva truce. Yet core barriers remain firmly in place: U.S. base tariffs on Chinese goods remain near 30%, China's on U.S. exports linger around 10%, and neither side agreed to roll back its export-control regimes. Without a detailed enforcement mechanism or significant new commitments, the framework may merely defer a return to pre-Geneva duties once the 90-day window lapses in August. Current versus pre-Geneva Tariff Levels Geopolitical undercurrents will also further limit any long-term détente. In Washington, a bipartisan consensus has emerged around the need to 'de‐risk' critical supply chains, not merely as a commercial maneuver but as a national security imperative. Policymakers and industry leaders alike fear that overdependence on China for semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, rare‐earth minerals, and even basic manufacturing capacity leaves the United States dangerously exposed to coercive economic pressure or abrupt supply shocks. This conviction has translated into a suite of domestic incentives—ranging from the CHIPS and Science Act to expanded Defense Production Act authorities—designed to shore up American production of key inputs and diversify procurement to 'trusted' partners. On the other side of the Pacific, Chinese leadership interprets these U.S. measures as part of a long-standing containment strategy. Official rhetoric in Beijing routinely casts de-risking initiatives as destabilizing 'decoupling' efforts that threaten China's development model and tarnish the mutually beneficial aspects of economic integration. State media and senior diplomats argue that a sovereign nation, particularly one bearing the mantle of a developing‐country status, must safeguard its industrial base against foreign interference. Despite the rhetoric on economic self-reliance, both the U.S. and China have much to lose from a prolonged trade war. According to the military think tank RAND, 'roughly 40 percent of China's exports to the United States fall into categories where China supplies more than half of America's total imports.' Meanwhile, China is eager to gain access to GPUs and CPUs from American companies like NVIDIA and AMD to power its growing AI infrastructure. Even knowing this, leaders on both sides remain committed to showing strength and independence. Trump administration officials are wary of ceding control to China, while Beijing officials do not want to appear weak on the global stage. The talks, while cordial, still have not permanently de-escalated the trade war, with 30% and 10% baseline tariffs remaining on the American and Chinese sides, respectively. Furthermore, China has only agreed to a six-month license for American companies seeking to import rare earth minerals and magnets. Beyond the economic impact, the visa statuses of Chinese students in US universities will continue to remain uncertain as long as the trade war remains unresolved. As the two economic superpowers prepare for the current deadline on a comprehensive trade deal by August 10, the London talks underscore both the value and the limits of diplomacy: they bought time, but a durable resolution remains elusive. Special thanks to Jonah Kim, and Nathaniel Schochet, for their exceptional thought leadership, research, and editorial contributions to this article. Special thanks to Hanah Kim and Artem Valyaev Kunisky for assisting in providing info-graphics.
TechCrunch
2 hours ago
- TechCrunch
New details emerge on Meta's $14.3B deal for Scale
In Brief Meta's deal to partially acquire the AI startup Scale, giving it 49% ownership, is certainly unusual. What Scale officially announced is that the deal values the company at over $29 billion and that it will 'distribute' proceeds to shareholders and vested equity holders (aka employees) granting them with 'substantial liquidity' while allowing them to continue as shareholders. Meta is also hiring Scale's famed founder CEO Alexandr Wang, who famously dropped out of MIT at age 19 to build the company, which offers AI training data verified by humans. This might have sounded like Meta could buy shares from existing shareholders, but that's not the case, sources told Bloomberg. Investors are getting dividends. For instance Accel, which backed the company early, should get a payout of $2.5 billion, Bloomberg reports. (We've asked Accel for comment.) Scale has dozens of backers, including Amazon and Meta, and was last valued at $14 billion after raising a $1 billion Series F a year ago. So a payout of this magnitude is almost like buying the company. We'll have to wait and see if regulators agree.
