Europe Aims to Sidestep Capital Market Impasse With New Label
A group of European countries is teaming up on a new initiative to help funnel more savings into the continent's economy, as the region tries to accelerate progress on integrating and deepening its capital markets.
Officials including French Economy Minister Eric Lombard and his Spanish counterpart Carlos Cuerpo are scheduled to sign an agreement in Paris on Thursday for a label called 'Finance Europe' that would apply to certain products targeting retail investors, according to a statement by the French Economy Ministry.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
Live Both: Mastering The Save Versus Give Paradox
Reducing, removing or overcome financial barrier, financial concept : US dollar bag on a maze ... More puzzle. The image depicting a situation how to overcome financial difficulties and avoid a financial distress. getty For as long as I've been interested in money, I've wrestled with a personal tension: I want to be generous with what I have, but I also want to be a wise saver. In theory, both goals make sense. But in practice, they often feel like opposites. Saving helps me achieve goals and manage life's inevitable risks, like losing income during seasons of unemployment or my elder years. Saving is satisfying to me because it is measurable and strategic. It helps me prepare for emergencies and invest in products and services that are a blessing to the world. On the other hand, giving is aligned to love. It is who I am as a Christian since it is who God is. 'For God so loved the world that He gave…' It creates connection, reduces isolation, and reminds me that money isn't just about me. Yet every dollar I give is a dollar I can't save—and every dollar I save is one I'm not using to make a difference today. For a long time, I treated this as a problem to solve. I searched for the right budget, the perfect ratio, the clean formula. What I discovered instead is that this is not a problem to solve—it's a paradox to navigate. Eventually, I found that the best way for me to make peace with this tension wasn't through spreadsheets or rules. It was through metaphors. These images helped me understand my relationship with money in a more human and creative way, and they gave me a framework to build a financial life that reflects both responsibility and generosity. Here are four metaphors that have reshaped how I think about saving and giving: 1. Water Stagnant water getty Imagine a lake that has no outlet. Over time, the water becomes stagnant. Nutrients build up. Salt accumulates. Life dies off. That's what happens in places like the Dead Sea. Compare that to a river or a lake that flows—it stays vibrant, oxygenated, and full of life. That image helped me see that holding onto all my money, even for good reasons, eventually becomes toxic. If there's no outflow, I lose something essential. I become overly cautious. I start to think I never have 'enough.' But the opposite extreme is no better. If water rushes out without being replenished, the stream dries up. I've been there too—giving more than I could sustain, eventually becoming resentful or dependent on others to meet my needs. This metaphor reminded me that a healthy financial life needs both inflow and outflow. Saving without giving becomes lifeless. Giving without saving becomes unsustainable. My goal is to find the flow. 2. Barn A beautiful winter scenic in Alberta, Canada. White horse and red barn. Rolling prairie. getty A barn isn't built out of fear—it's built out of foresight. Farmers don't build barns because they're selfish. They do it because they know winter is coming. They know that without storing seed and grain, they can't plant again in the spring. When I think about saving in this way, it no longer feels like hoarding. It becomes a way to protect my ability to contribute long-term. It's not about stockpiling money so I can escape the world. It's about preparing myself to remain useful, even when conditions change. I've learned that my version of a 'barn' includes an emergency fund, health insurance, and enough margin to say yes when an unexpected opportunity to help someone arises. 3. Tree Fruit tree getty A tree does something beautiful: it holds onto what it needs, and it gives away the rest. It stores nutrients in its roots, but it also produces fruit, gives shade, and releases oxygen. It serves both itself and everything around it. Trees also overproduce. They don't just generate one apple or one acorn. They produce far more than they need. That picture helped me shift from thinking about generosity as a loss to thinking about it as natural overflow. I don't want to be a tree that's either dried out or bloated. I want to be rooted and resilient, and fruitful. Saving helps me stand firm. Giving helps me reach outward. The two support each other. Red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber) getty I've always been fascinated by amphibians. They can live in two worlds: water and land. If they stay in the water too long, they suffocate. If they stay on land too long, they dry out. That's how I feel sometimes with my money. The financial planning world rewards discipline and saving. But the social world I live in—my relationships, my community—runs on giving and connection. If I lean too hard into one world, I lose touch with the other. Being an amphibian means learning to move between both. I spend time reviewing my savings goals, but I also look for ways to help others, share what I have, and experience the joy of giving. It's not about perfect balance every day. It's about becoming fluent in both environments over time. My Personal Strategy After years of trial and error, I settled on a simple principle that works for me. I decided that my giving rate should always be at least double my saving rate. This ratio reminds me to prioritize generosity, because it aligns with who I am as a follower of Jesus. I also need to view my savings as a tool to create a more sustainable flow of giving throughout my life, helping me avoid costly debt during seasons of hardship. This strategy may not be perfect or permanent. But it feels honest. It's rooted in the metaphors that help me make sense of money; and in the values I want to live by. Final Thoughts If you feel torn between saving and giving, you're not alone. It's not a simple decision, and it may never be. But it doesn't have to be a source of stress. Instead, it can be a creative challenge. You don't have to find the one right answer. You just need to find the rhythm that works for you. Metaphors can help. They give us new language. They slow us down. They turn pressure into perspective. Metaphors can also help with the paradoxes of investing, like whether to buy cheap and old or expensive and new. See my Forbes article that discusses using metaphor to navigate an age-old investing paradox here: Forbes Live Both: Mastering The Growth Vs. Value Investing Paradox By Shane Enete At the end of the day, I'm not looking for a formula. I'm looking for meaning. I want my money to reflect both who I am and who I want to become. And that means learning how to give freely while still saving wisely.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
LME Imposes Rule Forcing Traders to Reduce Big Front-Month Bets
The London Metal Exchange set a new rule on Friday to force traders to reduce large positions, after the market was rocked in recent months by the arrival of some of the world's largest energy traders. The exchange said that, starting Monday, any trader with a position in the nearby month's contract larger than the total available stock would be forced to reduce its position by offering to lend it to other traders.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
The new map that could be guiding Trump's Middle East moves
Video President Donald Trump came back into office promising no new wars. So far, he's kept that promise. But he's also left much of Washington — and many of America's allies — confused by a series of rapid, unexpected moves across the Middle East. In just a few months, Trump has reopened backchannels with Iran, then turned around and threatened its regime with collapse. He's kept Israel at arm's length — skipping it on his regional tour — before signaling support once again. He lifted U.S. sanctions on Syria's Islamist leader, a figure long treated as untouchable in Washington. And he made headlines by hosting Pakistan's top general at the White House, even as India publicly objected. For those watching closely, it's been hard to pin down a clear doctrine. Critics see improvisation — sometimes even contradiction. But step back, and a pattern begins to emerge. It's not about ideology, democracy promotion, or traditional alliances. It's about access. Geography. Trade. More specifically, it may be about restarting a long-stalled infrastructure project meant to bypass China — and put the United States back at the center of a strategic economic corridor stretching from India to Europe. The project is called the India–Middle East–Europe Corridor, or IMEC. Most Americans have never heard of it. It was launched in 2023 at the G20 summit in New Delhi, as a joint initiative among the U.S., India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the European Union. Its goal? To build a modern infrastructure link connecting South Asia to Europe — without passing through Chinese territory or relying on Chinese capital. IMEC's vision is bold but simple: Indian goods would travel west via rail and ports through the Gulf, across Israel, and on to European markets. Along the way, the corridor would connect not just trade routes, but energy pipelines, digital cables, and logistics hubs. It would be the first serious alternative to China's Belt and Road Initiative — a way for the U.S. and its partners to build influence without boots on the ground. But before construction could begin, war broke out in Gaza. The October 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel's military response sent the region into crisis. Normalization talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel fell apart. The Red Sea became a warzone for shipping. And Gulf capital flows paused. The corridor — and the broader idea of using infrastructure to tie the region together — was quietly shelved. Video That's the backdrop for Trump's current moves. Taken individually, they seem scattered. Taken together, they align with the logic of clearing obstacles to infrastructure. Trump may not be drawing maps in the Situation Room. But his instincts — for leverage, dealmaking and unpredictability — are removing the very roadblocks that halted IMEC in the first place. His approach to Iran is a prime example. In April, backchannels were reopened on the nuclear front. In May, a Yemen truce was brokered — reducing attacks on Gulf shipping. In June, after Israeli strikes inside Iran, Trump escalated rhetorically, calling for Iran's "unconditional surrender." That combination of engagement and pressure may sound erratic. But it mirrors the approach that cleared a diplomatic path with North Korea: soften the edges, then apply public pressure. Meanwhile, Trump's temporary distancing from Israel is harder to miss. He skipped it on his regional tour and avoided aligning with Prime Minister Netanyahu's continued hard-line approach to Gaza. Instead, he praised Qatar — a U.S. military partner and quiet mediator in the Gaza talks — and signaled support for Gulf-led reconstruction plans. The message: if Israel refuses to engage in regional stabilization, it won't control the map. Trump also made the unexpected decision to lift U.S. sanctions on Syria's new leader, President Ahmad al-Sharaa — a figure with a past in Islamist groups, now leading a transitional government backed by the UAE. Critics saw the move as legitimizing extremism. But in practice, it unlocked regional financing and access to transit corridors once blocked by U.S. policy. Even the outreach to Pakistan — which angered India — fits a broader infrastructure lens. Pakistan borders Iran, influences Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and maintains ties with Gulf militaries. Welcoming Pakistan's military chief was less about loyalty, and more about leverage. In corridor politics, geography often trumps alliances. None of this means Trump has a master plan. There's no confirmed strategy memo that links these moves to IMEC. And the region remains volatile. Iran's internal stability is far from guaranteed. The Gaza conflict could reignite. Saudi and Qatari interests don't always align. But there's a growing logic underneath the diplomacy: de-escalate just enough conflict to make capital flow again — and make corridors investable. That logic may not be ideologically pure. It certainly isn't about spreading democracy. But it reflects a real shift in U.S. foreign policy. Call it infrastructure-first geopolitics — where trade routes, ports and pipelines matter more than treaties and summits. To be clear, the United States isn't the only player thinking this way. China's Belt and Road Initiative has been advancing the same model for over a decade. Turkey, Iran and Russia are also exploring new logistics and energy corridors. But what sets IMEC apart — and what makes Trump's recent moves notable — is that it offers an opening for the U.S. to compete without large-scale military deployments or decades-long aid packages. Even the outreach to Pakistan — which angered India — fits a broader infrastructure lens. Pakistan borders Iran, influences Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and maintains ties with Gulf militaries. For all his unpredictability, Trump has always had a sense for economic leverage. That may be what we're seeing here: less a doctrine than a direction. Less about grand visions, and more about unlocking chokepoints. There's no guarantee it will work. The region could turn on a dime. And the corridor could remain, as it is now, a partially built concept waiting on political will. But Trump's moves suggest he's trying to build the conditions for it to restart — not by talking about peace, but by making peace a condition for investment. In a region long shaped by wars over ideology and territory, that may be its own kind of strategy. Tanvi Ratna is a policy analyst and engineer with a decade of experience in statecraft at the intersection of geopolitics, economics, and technology. She has worked on Capitol Hill, at EY, at CoinDesk and others, shaping policy across sectors from manufacturing to AI. Follow her takes on statecraft on X and Substack.
