The new school year is upon us, and with it a whole series of questions about the evolution of the global economy and each of its components. As a European, three questions seem to be of major importance.

The first concerns the international environment. The failure of the Anchorage negotiations on Ukraine will prompt Donald Trump to shift his focus to a different theme. The goal is to remain at the heart of daily issues in the press and elsewhere.

The second is about Europe and its ability to influence global decisions when the world becomes more vertical and decisions take on a more local dimension. But for this to work, Europe must define itself beyond economic issues and forge a real history and a clear long-term plan for Europeans.

The third question concerns France and the risk of political instability due to budget discussions, but also due to the announcement of social tensions. This will not be neutral for investors.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

Since Donald Trump took office, the degree of uncertainty about Washington’s policy has increased dramatically. According to the US Policy Uncertainty Index, the measure of uncertainty has quadrupled since January 20, compared to the period 1985-January 19, 2025.

The introduction of customs tariffs could be cited as an explanation for this change. But it is clear that this is an insufficient proposal given the very form of the policy pursued by the White House.

The topics are being addressed one after the other in a sometimes very heterodox manner, at the risk of confusing analysts. One topic chasing another, the stablecoin chasing customs tariffs, which themselves chased away the budget vote… We see no reason for this mode of operation to stop.

The failure of peace negotiations in Ukraine during the meeting with Putin in Anchorage will generate a new type of rebound on a very different issue. The issue is not settled, but the ground is occupied by another topic. This could be the case with the announcement of a possible 300% tax on semiconductors.

We cannot assume that this race for transformation at all costs will end quickly. This will result in continued high levels of uncertainty about the rules of the game currently being written by the White House. This is not good for anyone and is detrimental to the economic cycle.

Companies, even American ones, don’t like having a vague and opaque horizon. This is a factor that encourages them to postpone their productive investments.

In the US strategy, this is probably the most damaging factor for the global economy. When the rules are fixed, everyone adapts. When they change continuously, the incentive is to wait.