© Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images
© The New York Times
Beijing warns against ‘discriminatory’ step after France drops opposition to British role in Made in Europe package
No 10 has left the door open to imposing tariffs on Chinese-made electric vehicles as part of the Made in Europe package, prompting a warning from Beijing that such a move would be “discriminatory”.
Downing Street said on Friday that it would “welcome the objective to have the UK included in the Industrial Accelerator Act” after France dropped its opposition to Britain joining the scheme.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Nick Carey/Reuters
© Photograph: Nick Carey/Reuters
© Photograph: Nick Carey/Reuters
Beijing warns against ‘discriminatory’ step after France drops opposition to British role in Made in Europe package
No 10 has left the door open to imposing tariffs on Chinese-made electric vehicles as part of the Made in Europe package, prompting a warning from Beijing that such a move would be “discriminatory”.
Downing Street said on Friday that it would “welcome the objective to have the UK included in the Industrial Accelerator Act” after France dropped its opposition to Britain joining the scheme.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Nick Carey/Reuters
© Photograph: Nick Carey/Reuters
© Photograph: Nick Carey/Reuters
TSMC expects overseas manufacturing to reduce its consolidated gross margin by nearly two percentage points in 2026, with the impact widening to three to four points later in its expansion program. The company plans to spend $60 billion to $64 billion on capital expenditure this year. Its latest outlook calls for fourth-quarter revenue of up […]
The post TSMC’s global buildout faces crucial capital efficiency test appeared first on Asia Times.
NFU analysis of official data shows falls in exports to UK’s largest trading partner since 2019 include 70% for sugar and 74% for egg products
Exports of British food and drink to the EU have collapsed by more than a third since Brexit with eggs, chicken and potato producers badly hit, new figures show.
Analysis by the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) of HMRC data shows a sharp fall in exports in the year to July compared with the same period in 2019, with sugar dropping the most, down 70%.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian
© Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian
© Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian
This week, the Trump administration announced it's expanding its stake in semiconductor manufacturer GlobalFoundries. This brings the government's share of the company to over $2 billion, according to President Donald Trump, and it's only one of roughly three dozen companies in which this White House has acquired a piece of the action. This is a disturbing development for Americans who favor free enterprise and don't want the government to control the means of production.
While it may be a while before the opportunity arises to roll back state intervention in the economy, given the drift of both major parties away from faith in the marketplace, the Cato Institute has launched a project to get the process started.
"The U.S. Department of Commerce will receive equity in GF of approximately four percent, further enabling the American public to share in GF's growth," GlobalFoundries announced Monday in a press release about a U.S.–Japanese initiative to open two new semiconductor manufacturing facilities.
"This brings our total Investments to 1.63 Billion Dollars, and now, the U.S. Government's stake is worth over 2 Billion Dollars," Trump confirmed on Truth Social.
The announcement's triumphant tone isn't necessarily shared by people who wonder what the government's ownership stake in one company will do to regulation and investment in the industry. Will fully private firms challenging a state-backed player experience an even playing field?
In a July CNBC survey of 1,000 U.S. voters, 49 percent of respondents said it is "not appropriate for the federal government to own a portion of a U.S.-based company." Nineteen percent considered it appropriate, and 32 percent had no opinion.
"Washington's expanding involvement in the businesses it regulates threatens the competition and innovation that underpin American prosperity," warns the Cato Institute's Tad DeHaven on the launch of the Restoring Free Enterprise project. "Our project will examine the consequences of that involvement and chart a path toward getting Washington out of the boardroom."
Restoring Free Enterprise's Government Ownership Dashboard shows the U.S. government owning shares in 35 companies. The recent deal with GlobalFoundries comes on top of an earlier equity stake, giving the government 7 percent ownership of the firm. Other big deals include an 8.4 percent stake in Intel, a claim on 20 percent of distributions above $17.5 billion in Westinghouse, and an arrangement granting the U.S. government the right to appoint a director for U.S. Steel and to veto decisions over matters including investment and production.
Why might this be a problem?
In an analysis for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Sujai Shivakumar, Charles Wessner, and Christina Tutino cautioned that direct government ownership could create "conflicts between the role of the government as an investor in a particular company and its role as a regulator (e.g., regarding export controls) of firms across the wider industry." They added that preferential treatment for state-linked forms could "distort competition, stifle innovation, and potentially lead to monopolies or market concentration in strategic sectors."
"Once government crosses the line into equity ownership, the game changes," agreed economist Vance Ginn in a 2025 piece for the American Institute for Economic Research. "It's no longer about setting fair rules of the road—it's about Washington joining the race as a participant. That undermines competition, politicizes corporate decisions, and exposes taxpayers to risks they never agreed to take."
Basically, when the government gets involved in any industry, it complicates matters for the companies in which shares are held, for competitors who must worry that regulators will put their thumbs on the scale to help favored firms, and for the market in general. Overall, government interference of any sort in market transactions does more harm than good, and direct ownership makes things even worse.
"Federal rate controls, excessive taxes, barriers to restructuring, and rigid labor rules weakened private railroads in the mid-20th century, just as automobiles, buses, trucks, and airlines were intensifying competition," Cato's Chris Edwards points out in a case study for the Restoring Free Enterprise Project. Congress then created Amtrak to maintain the passenger train service its red tape had helped strangle, but despite plans for the railroad to be self-sufficient, "it has never earned a profit and has received tens of billions of dollars in subsidies."
The project acknowledges the Trump administration's intention to encourage U.S. manufacturing and to meet strategic defense goals. But it points out that private, profit-seeking firms are what made the U.S. prosperous and dominant in so many fields to begin with. The government should get out of the way of the market if it wants the country to continue to thrive.
As alternatives to state ownership of companies, Restoring Free Enterprise proposes permitting and regulatory reforms that "shorten reviews, remove unnecessary requirements, reform the Jones Act, and recognize out-of-state licenses" for workers. The project also recommends free trade agreements that reduce barriers to international commerce, the removal of export and procurement barriers, tax reforms involving expensing, and immigration reforms that simplify processing and make it easier for foreign-born college graduates to remain in the U.S.
The obstacles to implementing these reforms are substantial. The administration, while criticizing the Democratic Party's growing affection for socialism, itself embraces government ownership of companies, mercantilism, and heavy state intervention in economic decisions and activities. The Democratic Party has long been less market-oriented than the Republicans, and despite the GOP's transformation, a growing share of Democrats are openly socialist advocates for state control.
"American political leaders on the left and right are rebelling against the market-first consensus that dominated Washington for four decades," concluded Axios's Courtenay Brown and Neil Irwin in July. "It's evident in everything from the Trump administration taking government stakes in dozens of private companies to socialist candidates winning Democratic primaries promising a more active government role in the economy."
U.S. politicians are happily adopting damaging policies that are at odds with the country's prosperity-building tradition of free markets. The Restoring Free Enterprise project would reverse that unfortunate trend, but it's not obvious that many people in D.C. are interested in joining the fight.
The post As D.C. Embraces State Economic Control, a Hopeful Project Seeks to Restore Free Enterprise appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Mines in supply chains of western carmakers linked to widespread deforestation of primary rainforest in nickel-rich lands inhabited by Tolaki people in Indonesia
Volkswagen, Ford and Tesla are among the electric carmakers whose batteries may contain nickel mined in indigenous woodlands plagued by deforestation, an analysis has found, highlighting the struggle to make vehicles that are free from environmental destruction.
Corporate disclosures and trade flows from the last two years show mines in the battery supply chains of automotive giants are linked to the loss of trees in Sulawesi, a wildlife hotspot in Indonesia that houses the world’s largest nickel deposits. The metal is widely used in cathodes in car batteries because it boosts energy density and increases range.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Didi Hardiana, NGO Puspaham
© Photograph: Didi Hardiana, NGO Puspaham
© Photograph: Didi Hardiana, NGO Puspaham
Industrial production in the eurozone fell by 0.5 per cent in August compared with July, according to figures released by Eurostat on Thursday, adding to evidence that European manufacturers are struggling to sustain a recovery amid rising energy costs and uncertain demand.
The decline followed a revised contraction of 0.3 per cent in July, while output across the wider European Union fell by 0.3 per cent in August. Compared with the same month last year, eurozone production was down 1.1 per cent, against a decline of 0.2 per cent across the EU as a whole.
Belgium recorded the largest monthly contraction among the member states covered by the release, at 5.1 per cent, followed by Ireland at 3.1 per cent and Portugal at 2 per cent.
The latest industrial production figures underline the uneven performance of Europe’s factories, with losses concentrated in some economies and sectors while others continue to expand.
The sectoral breakdown presents a particularly revealing picture of the pressures facing European industry.
Production of intermediate goods, which include materials and components supplied to other manufacturers, declined by 0.8 per cent across the eurozone in August. Energy production fell by 0.6 per cent, while output of non-durable consumer goods contracted by 2.7 per cent.
By contrast, capital goods production increased by 0.4 per cent, indicating that activity in equipment and machinery manufacturing remained comparatively resilient.
The divergence was also pronounced between member states. Industrial production increased by 6.5 per cent in Sweden, 4.3 per cent in Estonia and 2.6 per cent in the Netherlands.
On an annual basis, Ireland recorded a 15 per cent decline, followed by Belgium at 7.1 per cent and Bulgaria at 5.4 per cent. The Netherlands, meanwhile, registered growth of 9.8 per cent compared with August 2025.
These variations make it difficult to describe Europe’s industrial position as a single, uniform downturn. National production figures reflect different industrial structures, production cycles and exposure to particular markets.
Ireland’s figures, for example, can be influenced by changes in output among large multinational enterprises, while Belgium’s manufacturing economy is particularly exposed to developments in chemicals, pharmaceuticals and energy-intensive production.
Nevertheless, the simultaneous contraction of industrial output across the eurozone reinforces concerns about the strength of the European economic recovery.
The continuing disruption of global energy supplies has complicated the position of European manufacturers, particularly businesses that depend on predictable electricity and gas prices.
The Middle East conflict has increased uncertainty over energy costs and transportation, making production planning more difficult for companies operating with substantial fuel, heating or electricity requirements.
As EU Today reported earlier this week, Brussels has already moved to delay certain methane requirements for energy imports as governments seek to limit additional pressure on gas supplies.
The decision reflects a wider debate over whether the EU’s existing regulatory framework adequately accounts for the international cost disadvantages facing European industrial producers.
Chemicals, metals, fertilisers and other energy-intensive industries must compete with manufacturers operating in markets where energy costs and regulatory requirements can differ considerably.
The problem extends beyond immediate profitability. Persistently unfavourable operating costs can affect decisions about new factories, maintenance, modernisation and the location of future investment.
Those decisions may have longer-lasting economic consequences than monthly fluctuations in production.
The figures arrive as EU governments debate the future of European industrial policy, including the treatment of imported products and the conditions under which companies should qualify for public support.
Recent disagreements over proposed European-content requirements have illustrated divisions between governments seeking greater protection for EU manufacturers and those concerned that restrictive rules could increase costs or disrupt supply chains.
In a recent warning over the proposed Made in Europe framework, Mercedes-Benz chief executive Ola Källenius argued against excluding Britain from industrial arrangements intended to strengthen European production.
The debate is particularly consequential for automotive manufacturers whose supply chains extend across EU borders and into neighbouring countries.
Meanwhile, the proposed EU budget for 2028–2034 has become another focus of disagreement, with member states questioning how much funding should be devoted to industrial competitiveness, strategic technologies and energy infrastructure.
The immediate economic issue is whether European factories can recover production as energy costs remain elevated and external demand fluctuates.
Eurostat’s August figures do not establish how individual government policies have affected output, nor do they determine whether the contraction will continue. They do, however, show that industrial activity entered the autumn with limited momentum.
The next industrial production release, covering September, is scheduled for 16 November and will provide an indication of whether the late-summer weakness persisted into the final quarter of the year.
Login