Deepak Shenoy's stark warning for global economy amid growing geopolitical risks: 'It's going to get a lot more messy'
In a social media post on X, Deepak Shenoy said that geopolitical complexities have dramatically increased and will hurt the world economically. 'It's going to get a lot more messy, it seems,' Shenoy warned.
Oil prices jumped more than 13% on Friday after Israel said it struck Iran, targeting its nuclear facilities and ballistic missile factories, to prevent Tehran from building an atomic weapon.
Amid fears of a disruption to crude oil supplies, the benchmark Brent crude contract hit $78.50 per barrel, its highest since January 27, and was last up 9% at $75.50 per barrel.
This dramatic crude oil price spike has immediate and far-reaching implications for the global economy. For India, which imports over 85% of its crude oil needs, higher crude oil prices could affect the inflation outlook. It could also result in other issues like a widening of the trade deficit and potential depreciation of the rupee.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Why UK's recognition of a Palestinian state should not be conditional on Israel's actions
The announcement this week by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the recognition of a Palestininian state has been welcomed by many who want to see a ceasefire in Gaza and lasting peace in the region. In contrast to other recent statements on the status of Palestine, however, the UK has said it will recognise Palestine as a state in September "unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commits to a long term sustainable peace, including through allowing the UN to restart without delay the supply of humanitarian support to the people of Gaza to end starvation, agreeing to a ceasefire, and making clear there will be no annexations in the West Bank." Until this week, the UK's position had been that recognition would only follow a negotiated two-state solution in Israel-Palestine. Other countries have now begun to shift from that position, too. The latest UK statement was preceded by announcements from France on July 25 and Canada on July 31 that they too would recognise Palestine as a state in September. But the UK position is different in one important way: it is conditional on Israel failing to comply with its international humanitarian obligations in Gaza and the West Bank. In other words, recognition of Palestine as a state by the UK is being used as a stick to persuade Israel to agree to a ceasefire. Should Israel agree to those conditions, the UK will presumably not recognise Palestine as a state in September, but will revert to its original position on a two-state solution. Conditional recognition subject to action by Israel – a third state – represents an unwelcome and arguably dangerous departure from international practice. While recognition (or otherwise) of states is inherently political – as demonstrated by the unique status of Taiwan, for example – it is not and should not be made conditional on the action or inaction of third states.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Elite colleges under pressure: Trump wields federal funding to redefine academic autonomy
US President Donald Trump In an unprecedented reconfiguration of the relationship between higher education and the federal government, several of the United States' most prestigious universities have capitulated, some quietly, others under public scrutiny—to the hardball tactics of President Donald Trump's administration. Under threat of losing billions in federal research funding, elite institutions have agreed to sweeping concessions, financial penalties, and ideological alignment with a White House intent on recasting academia in its own image. At the heart of the confrontation is the administration's aggressive use of funding as leverage. Research dollars—historically doled out based on academic merit—are now weaponized to coerce ideological compliance. In a departure from past presidential norms, Trump has fused his political agenda with federal purse strings, tying grants to reforms in campus speech, gender definitions, diversity policy, and even interpretations of antisemitism. The Columbia precedent Columbia University was the first to yield. On July 23, the Ivy League institution agreed to pay a staggering $200 million fine to the U.S. Treasury in exchange for reinstatement of suspended research grants. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Susan Boyle Is Now so Thin and Looks Beautiful! Undo Over $400 million in federal funding had been pulled earlier in the year, largely due to the administration's claim that Columbia failed to adequately address antisemitic incidents during the Israel-Hamas war. In its agreement, Columbia consented to overhauls of its student disciplinary protocols and formally adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, a controversial benchmark critics say conflates political criticism of Israel with hate speech. Additionally, the university committed $21 million to a compensation fund for faculty and staff who alleged discrimination. Yet, even in compromise, Columbia drew a line in the sand: the deal includes language asserting that the federal government cannot dictate its hiring, admissions, or academic speech. For Trump officials, however, the Columbia deal serves as a 'road map' for future enforcement, a blueprint of how universities might 'come to heel.' Brown and Penn : Ideological bargains Brown University followed with a $50 million payment directed not to federal coffers but to Rhode Island's workforce development programs—an unusual stipulation reflecting the administration's local economic messaging. In exchange, the government lifted funding freezes and ended probes into alleged antisemitism and racial bias in admissions. As part of the settlement, Brown agreed to remove race as a consideration in admissions and adopt the administration's binary definitions of gender. The University of Pennsylvania reached its own compromise, agreeing to retroactively disqualify swimming records set by transgender athlete Lia Thomas and issue a formal apology to female swimmers the administration argued had been disadvantaged. The Education Department had linked this civil rights case to a broader effort to ban transgender athletes from women's sports, resulting in a $175 million freeze in Penn's research funding prior to the agreement. Like Columbia's and Brown's, Penn's agreement included a clause preserving curricular independence, but the impact of the federal intrusion had already left its mark. The Holdouts: Harvard , Cornell , and beyond Not all institutions have acquiesced. Harvard University, long a symbolic adversary of Trump's populist conservatism, faces the largest penalty yet: a freeze on more than $2.6 billion in federal research support. The administration has accused Harvard of fostering antisemitism and enabling ideological extremism—charges the university disputes through multiple lawsuits. Negotiations continue, but administration officials have reportedly demanded a penalty surpassing Columbia's. For Harvard, the stakes are not only financial but existential: ceding to such terms may compromise the academic autonomy it has zealously guarded for nearly four centuries. Cornell University, Northwestern, and Duke have likewise seen vast sums—ranging from $108 million at Duke to over $1 billion at Cornell—frozen amid allegations of civil rights violations, racial preferences in hiring, and insufficient protection for Jewish students. In Princeton's case, dozens of federal research grants were suspended without any explicit reasoning—underscoring the unpredictability and opacity of the administration's tactics. A presidency reshaping academia Trump's strategic targeting of elite universities reflects a broader ideological crusade. He has painted Ivy League institutions as bastions of liberal dogma, harboring what his administration sees as anti-American, antisemitic, and discriminatory practices. Unlike any of his predecessors, Trump is using federal funding as both cudgel and carrot—punishing noncompliance while rewarding universities that align with his ideological framework. Critics argue this is a dangerous politicization of education, undermining the intellectual independence and open inquiry that universities are meant to protect. Supporters counter that it's long overdue corrective action against institutions they view as detached from public values. What is undeniable is the chilling effect: colleges across the country now operate under the specter of federal scrutiny, where the cost of defiance is measured not only in dollars but in compromised autonomy. Autonomy at a price These developments mark a watershed moment in American higher education. The Trump administration's wielding of federal research dollars as a means of ideological enforcement has redrawn the contours of university-government relations. Institutions once thought untouchable now find themselves making fraught calculations, balancing their principles against existential financial risk. For elite colleges, the question is no longer just about academic excellence—it is about whether independence can survive in an era where funding is contingent upon political fealty. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
Stagflation fears grow in US—why India should worry too
As the world's biggest economy faces increasing risks of stagflation—a scenario characterised by simultaneous high inflation and high unemployment, investors and policymakers worldwide are closely monitoring potential repercussions. This article explores how a possible stagflation in the United States could influence US markets and, subsequently, Indian markets. Understanding stagflation and risks Stagflation is a condition where inflation rises even as economic growth remains sluggish or stagnant, often accompanied by rising unemployment. Unlike demand-driven inflation, which typically results from increased consumer spending, stagflation usually stems from supply-side shocks or external disruptions. One of the most notable episodes of stagflation occurred in the US during the 1970s. Following the 1973 Arab-Israel war, Arab OPEC countries imposed an oil embargo on the US, triggering a surge in oil prices. This fuelled inflation and crippled the oil-dependent US economy, pushing it into a slowdown. Unemployment rose alongside inflation, which peaked at 14% in 1980. The US Federal Reserve, under Chairman Paul Volcker, had to raise the federal funds rate (the benchmark interest rate) to as high as 20% to rein in inflation. Also read: dollar gains ground, will India's high-net-worth individuals switch to stablecoins?">As digital dollar gains ground, will India's high-net-worth individuals switch to stablecoins? Currently, the US economy appears vulnerable to stagflation. Several factors contribute to this risk: Rising import tariffs: Proposed higher tariffs—particularly on Chinese goods—could inflate the cost of imported items. Since the US economy is consumption-driven and heavily dependent on imports, this poses a serious inflationary risk. Notably, The Economist reports that nearly 70% of products sold on Amazon US are made in China. A steep rise in tariffs could significantly push prices upward. Income erosion and demand slowdown: As import prices rise, real incomes—adjusted for inflation—shrink, reducing consumers' purchasing power. With weakened demand, businesses may cut jobs, pushing up unemployment. Economic indicators flashing red: Recent US data shows jobless claims at their highest levels in over three years. Inflation remains around 2.4%, just above the Fed's target of 2%. Moreover, the US economy contracted by 0.5% in Q1 of 2025, signaling a slowdown. Why the Fed is holding back on rate cuts The risk of stagflation is shaping the US Federal Reserve's current strategy. Chairman Jerome Powell has indicated that interest rate cuts will be paused to better assess the combined impact of tariffs and inflationary trends. The Fed wants to avoid fuelling further inflation while monitoring signs of an economic slowdown. What this could mean for US stock markets A stagflation scenario could have profound effect on US equity markets. Historically, such periods have led to sharp declines in stock indices such as the Nasdaq, Dow Jones, and S&P 500—especially in overvalued sectors. Currently trading near all-time highs, these indices could experience significant corrections if stagflation materializes. However, given the US economy's fundamental strength, policymakers—through coordinated fiscal and monetary measures—may attempt to control inflation without derailing growth. Such measures could include reducing tariffs and deploying targeted stimulus. The impact of these measures may increase market volatility too. Also read: From family vacations to business trips, here's how large foreign expenses affect your taxes How Indian markets could feel the heat India's trade relationship with the US makes it susceptible to global economic shifts. The US is India's largest trading partner, with Indian companies across sectors—IT, pharmaceuticals, auto parts—highly dependent on the US market. Export headwinds: Indian exports, particularly in IT and pharmaceuticals, may suffer as US consumer demand shrinks under inflationary pressures. GDP slowdown risk: With net exports forming a key component of India's GDP, a US-led demand dip could weigh on overall growth. Sentiment and stock market impact: Increased global volatility and concerns about export earnings may drag Indian equities lower, especially in US-facing sectors. While a stagflation scenario in the US is clearly not favourable for Indian markets, investors should remain alert to these macroeconomic developments. Defensive, non-cyclical sectors—like FMCG—may offer relative safety during turbulent times. In contrast, sectors more reliant on US demand could prove vulnerable. Conclusion The potential onset of stagflation in the US presents a complex challenge with significant implications for global markets and India. Policymakers in the US will need to carefully balance measures to control inflation without stifling growth. For India, maintaining economic resilience will depend on diversifying export markets and strengthening domestic demand amid global uncertainties. Also read: What India can learn from other countries in term insurance adoption In essence, vigilance, proactive policy responses, and export market diversification strategies will be key to navigating the uncertain terrain ahead. Dhiraj Reli, MD & CEO, HDFC Securities
