
Thursday, 11 December 2025
30,000 Animals Rescued from Illegal Captivity in the Largest Wildlife Trafficking Raid in History

Tuesday, 2 December 2025
Thousands of passenger planes need to be fixed to avoid pilots losing control during solar storms
.png)
Friday, 28 November 2025
Delhi’s air quality deteriorates again, AQI climbs to 385 as cold wave deepens pollution crisis
Wednesday, 13 March 2024
Public Service Announcement: Young Indian student missing since March 1 in Queens, NY

Monday, 18 December 2023
EU launches 'illegal content' probe into Elon Musk's X

Monday, 23 October 2023
How the Israel-Hamas war could affect the world economy and worsen global trade tensions
Global geopolitical tensions often play a pivotal role in shaping people’s perceptions of economic growth. Research shows concern about such issues can cause people and businesses to become more cautious about spending and investing, which can ultimately lead to economic recession.
The recent escalation of the Israel-Palestine conflict is no different. Investors around the world are worried about the repercussions of this war – particularly in light of an already bleak picture for global economic growth.
Hamas’s October 7 attack on southern Israel is the latest chapter of a cycle of violence that has been going on in this region for decades and, sadly, seems to have no end in sight. While the reasons behind these events are complex, the conflict’s potential immediate and long-term economic ramifications are easier to grasp.
After all, if the Russia-Ukraine war has taught us one thing, it’s that we should be mindful of the intricate interdependencies that shape the global economic and geopolitical landscape.
How conflicts can affect the economy
Internal and inter-state conflicts often have a significant effect on stock market indices, exchange rates, and commodity prices – sometimes even sending prices higher in the lead-up to hostilities. The longer-term economic impact is typically more complicated to assess, however. The lasting effects of even seemingly dramatic events on investor behaviour can be hard to predict.
Conflicts in the Middle East tend to lead to spikes in oil prices – think of the OPEC oil embargo of 1973-1974, the Iranian revolution of 1978-1979, the Iran-Iraq War initiated in 1980, and the first Persian Gulf War in 1990-91. Since the region accounts for nearly a third of global oil supply, any instability can create market uncertainty based on concerns about interruptions to global oil supply.
This uncertainty is reflected in the risk premium in oil markets. This is the price paid for oil traded ahead of time in the futures markets versus the real-time price of oil. It reflects the profits that speculators expect to receive from buying and selling oil during a time of conflict, as well as the hedging needs of businesses that produce and consume oil and their concerns about supply and demand.
And so, the effect of the latest Israel-Hamas conflict on global financial markets will depend on the involvement of other major regional powers. If the conflict remains between Israel and Hamas, the effect will probably be limited and arguably exclusive to countries with direct trade exposure to Israel or Palestine.
But if the conflict spreads to major oil-producing nations in the region such as Iran, the global economy could face severe repercussions as energy costs for businesses and households could spike if supply is interrupted.
Higher energy prices would hamper central banks’ efforts to tame inflation pressures in most advanced and emerging economies. If this leads to a “higher for longer” monetary policy that keeps interest rates elevated, it would push up the cost of borrowing and refinancing by governments, companies and people.
History can offer some insights into how the impact on the global economy could unfold under these different scenarios. For instance, the 50-day war between Israel and Hamas in 2014, which killed 2,200 people, mostly civilians, had no significant effect on the global economy or financial markets.
Yet, when Israel and Hezbollah clashed in Lebanon in 2006, oil prices surged globally due to fears of a broader conflict in the Middle East.
What to expect this time
Unfortunately, there is another factor to consider at the moment. The escalation of the Israel-Palestine conflict has happened alongside the realignment of various global alliances. This slow creep of “deglobalisation” can be seen in a shift in trade policies in recent years.
Countries such as the US and UK are relocating economic activity including sourcing or manufacturing products from different countries out of concern about relying on suppliers in potentially hostile regions, as well as the impact of imports from low-wage countries on struggling local labour markets
At the moment, these shifts can also be seen in the reactions to the Hamas attack on Israel. A two-state solution) to the Israel/Palestine conflict was initially laid out by the United Nations in 1947 and reaffirmed in 1974, with almost unanimous support around the world.
But there has been some nuance in the international reactions to the attack. With most western countries quickly voicing support for Israel’s right to defend itself, while countries like China and Russia called for a ceasefire without taking a stance on Hamas.
This suggests that the issue of Israel-Palestine could tie in with the broader trend towards the new geopolitical divisions that were already starting to emerge before Hamas’s attack.
Financial markets will continue to monitor the conflict between Israel and Hamas for signs of escalation. Anything that pushes oil prices up further will reignite fears of higher inflation.
Unfortunately, this is happening just as many countries were starting to see inflation slow again after two years of persistently high consumer prices.![]()
Daniele Bianchi, Associate Professor of Finance, Queen Mary University of London
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Monday, 16 October 2023
US court dismisses Westinghouse case against Korea : Corporate
A rendering of two APR1400 units (Image: KHNP)Thursday, 12 October 2023
California dentist pleads guilty to stealing $500,000 in COVID-19 relief money
- The guilty plea was announced by U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California Phillip A. Talbert.
- According to the press release which quoted from court records, Rajbanshi ran a dental practice in Bakersfield and Santa Barbara.
- From April 2020 through February 2022, he received more than $850,000 in COVID-19 relief money from the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). He represented to the government that he would only use the relief money for specified business purposes such as facility costs, payroll, and protective equipment for him and his staff.
- Rajbanshi subsequently used $500,000 of the relief money “for improper personal expenditures such as investments,” the press release said. He has agreed to pay that money back to the government before his sentencing. He is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Ana de Alba on Dec. 4, 2023, when he faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and fine of $250,000. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.The Justice Department said anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud (NCDF) Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at justice.gov.California dentist pleads guilty to stealing $500,000 in COVID-19 relief money
Thursday, 17 August 2023
President Biden issues order restricting technology investments in China

- By Aniket Gupta, On 9 August 2023, US President Joe Biden signed an executive order that enforces restrictions on certain new American investments in China, specifically targeting sensitive technologies such as computer chips. The order also mandates government notification for investments in other technology sectors in China.
- The eagerly anticipated directive grants authority to the US Treasury Secretary to forbid or limit American investments in Chinese enterprises in three key sectors: semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies, and specific artificial intelligence systems. The order stated that the constraints would be applicable to ‘narrow subsets’ of the three domains, but exact details were not disclosed.
- The presidential order aims to prevent the utilization of American capital and knowledge to advance China's military modernization efforts and pose a threat to America’s national security. It seeks to reduce the involvement of private equity, venture capital, joint ventures, and new business ventures in China.
- The next day, the Chinese government expressed profound concern about the order and declared its right to undertake appropriate actions in response. The ministry said the US should uphold the principles of market economy regulations and fair competition and not artificially impede international economic and trade interactions and collaboration or introduce barriers.
- The proposal centers on investments in Chinese enterprises engaged in the creation of software for computer chip design and the development of manufacturing tools for such chips. The leading countries in this area are the US, Japan, and the Netherlands, while the Chinese government has been actively engaged in developing its own indigenous alternatives.
- According to the White House, that President Biden engaged with US allies over the proposal and took input from G7 nations.
- The executive order will exempt certain transactions and require investors to inform the government about their intentions for other deals. The treasury department indicated it might grant exceptions for specific transactions, which may include publicly traded instruments and transfers between US parent companies and subsidiaries.The order is set to be implemented in 2024 after several rounds of public input, which would include an initial 45-day comment period. Source: https://www.domain-b.com/, Image: https://pixabay.com/
Wednesday, 22 March 2023
Silicon Valley Bank, sixteenth-largest US bank, collapses
Tuesday, 21 February 2023
CBI Court convicts 09 accused including AGM, Assistant Manager of IDBI Bank for causing 99 Lakh loss to Bank

Sunday, 19 February 2023
"Energized and excited": Chris Hipkins becomes 41st Prime Minister of New Zealand
Wednesday, 12 October 2022
Global recession risk up in 2023 amid parallel rate hikes: World Bank

Sunday, 9 October 2022
Shakira to stand trial in Spain for tax evasion

Thursday, 29 September 2022
Suu Kyi gets 3 years in prison for breaching state secrets

Monday, 26 September 2022
France, US hail PM Modi's advice to Putin over Ukraine
Friday, 16 September 2022
Argentina regulator’s commitment to nuclear safety praised by IAEA : Regulation & Safety
.jpg?ext=.jpg)
Tuesday, 16 August 2022
French President Emmanuel Macron congratulates India on its Independence Day
Monday, 8 August 2022
India is a strong defense power in the world and now its impossible to become a defense threat against India.
- List of Countries with nuclear weapons
1. Russia 5,9772. United States 5,4283.China 3504.France 2905. United Kingdom 2256. Pakistan 1657.India 1608.Israel 909.North Korea 20
- Top 10 Countries with the Highest Number of Active-Duty Military Personnel (in members):
- Top 10 Countries with the Highest Number of Active-Duty and Reserve Military Personnel (in members
- Vietnam: 5,482,000
- South Korea: 3,699,000
- China: 3,355,000
- Russian Federation: 3,014,000
- India: 2,610,550
- United States: 2,233,050
- North Korea: 1,880,000
- Taiwan: 1,820,000
- Brazil: 1,706,500
- Pakistan: 1,204,000
- Largest militaries in the world by budget (Military Budget 2021 (in USD billions)
1. United States: 778.02. China: 252.03. India: 72.94. Russia: 61.75. United Kingdom: 59.26. Saudi Arabia:: 57.57. Germany: 52.88. France: 52.79. Japan: 49.110. South Korea: 45.711. Italy: 28.912. Australia: 27.513. Canada: 22.814. Israel: 21.715. Brazil: 19.7
- Top 10 Largest Air Forces in the World (by number of Military Aircraft) - Flight International 2022:
- United States Air Force - 5,217
- Russian Air Force - 3,863
- People's Liberation Army Air Force (China) - 1991
- Indian Air Force - 1,715
- Egyptian Air Force - 1,062
- Korean People's Army Air Force (North Korea) - 946
- South Korean Air Force - 898
- Pakistan Air Force - 810
- Japan Air Self-Defense Force - 746
- Royal Saudi Air Force - 690
- Top 10 Largest Navies in the World (by total number of warships and submarines - 2020):
- Foreseeing the future: The top 5 navies in the world by 2030
United States - The U.S. is expected to remain the dominant global naval power in 2030, thanks to an unmatched combination of sheer tonnage and technological advancement. The U.S. Navy doesn't just have many ships, it has many massive, cutting-edge ships.
United Kingdom - While the U.K.'s total number of ships is expected to decline, the addition of two new aircraft carriers and the progressive updating of its submarine fleet should establish the U.K. as the #2 maritime power.
China - The People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) fleet is older, but larger in number (if not tonnage) fleet than the U.S. Navy fleet, and the PLAN has ambitious plans to keep adding more and more vessels.
India - Another Asian country expanding its naval presence, India should have three operating aircraft carriers by 2030, collectively capable of deploying 110-120 aircraft.
Russia - This superpower's aging fleet is likely to suffer some budget constraints as older equipment is decommissioned, but Russia is still expected to have eight ballistic missile submarines (with 20 missiles each) patrolling the seas in 2030.
- India: Land-based ballistic missiles
- Prithvi-I Short-range ballistic missile: Range 150 KM.
- Prithvi-II Short-range ballistic missile: Range 250–350 KM
- Prithvi-III Short-range ballistic missile: Range: 350–600 KM
- Agni-I Medium-range ballistic missile: Range: 700 KM
- Shaurya Medium-range ballistic missile: Range: 700-1900 KM
- Agni-P Medium-range ballistic missile: Range: 1,000–2,000 KM
- Agni-II Medium-range ballistic missile: Range: 2,000–3,000 KM
- Agni-III Intermediate-range ballistic missile: Range: 3,500–5,000 KM
- Agni-IV Intermediate-range ballistic missile: Range: 4000 KM
- Agni-V Intercontinental ballistic missile: Range 5,000–8,000 KM
- Agni-VI Intercontinental ballistic missile & MIRV capable: Range: 8000–12,000 KM, Under development




