Skip to main content

News Discussions

Trending topics from trusted journalism, transformed into structured debates. Unlike our community discussions, these are automatically curated from breaking news to spark timely, nuanced conversation.

How is this different from Explore?

News Discussions are automatically generated from trending stories in real-time. Explore Discussions shows community-created topics on any subject. Both use the same structured debate format, but News focuses on current affairs.

Our News Sources (156 trusted outlets)

We aggregate stories from these reputable sources to ensure balanced, quality coverage:

Acquired Podcast Africa Confidential Al Jazeera English Al Monitor All-In Podcast AllAfrica Americas Quarterly Andrew Sullivan Anne Applebaum Ars Technica Associated Press Axios BBC News BBC Sport BBC World Service Bloomberg Brookings Institution CSIS Caixin Global Carbon Brief Carnegie Endowment Cato Institute Channel NewsAsia Chartbook Chatham House Christianity Today City Journal Clean Energy Wire CoinDesk Columbia Journalism Review Commentary Magazine Commonweal Cory Doctorow Daily Maverick Daily Wire Decrypt Deutsche Welle Diary of a CEO E&E News ESPN El País América El País English Euractiv Eurostat Ezra Klein Farnam Street Financial Times First Things Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy France24 Francis Fukuyama Freddie deBoer Haaretz Hot Air Huberman Lab IEA IMF Ian Bremmer Institute for Fiscal Studies Institute for Government International Crisis Group Jonathan Rauch Law & Liberty Le Monde English Lex Fridman Podcast MIT Technology Review Mail & Guardian Manhattan Institute Marginal Revolution Matt Taibbi Modern Wisdom National Review Nature News New Statesman Nieman Lab Nikkei Asia Noahpinion Not Boring OECD Office for Budget Responsibility Office for National Statistics Our World in Data Paul Graham Pew Research Center Platformer Politico Politico EU Power Line Poynter ProPublica RAND Corporation Radical with Amol Rajan RealClearPolitics Reason Resolution Foundation Rest of World STAT News Science Magazine Semafor Simon Willison Sixth Tone Sky Sports Slow Boring South China Morning Post Spiegel International Straits Times Stratechery Tablet Magazine TechCrunch The American Conservative The Athletic The Atlantic The Block The Commentary Magazine The Conversation The Critic The Dispatch The Economist The Ezra Klein Show The Federalist The Free Press The Guardian The Independent The Intercept The Lancet The National The New York Times The New Yorker The News Agents The Observer The Pragmatic Engineer The Rest Is Politics The Slow Newscast The Spectator US The Telegraph The Tim Ferriss Show The Times The Verge Time Tortoise Media Triggernometry UK Parliament UN News US Census Bureau UnHerd Vox WHO Wall Street Journal War on the Rocks Washington Examiner Wired World Bank World Economic Forum Yascha Mounk Zeynep Tufekci
Economy

How has Brexit affected the way European countries work together in their financial markets?

European Investment Bank President Nadia Calviño discusses the lender’s investment in security defense, tech and energy projects in an interview with Bloomberg TV’s Guy Johnson. She said the UK’s exit from the European Union is partly responsible for the EU’s failure to integrate its capital markets. “We shouldn’t underestimate the importance of Brexit,” Calviño said on Wednesday. “London was Europe’s financial market, and after Brexit we have divided our forces.” (Source: Bloomberg)

United States
Economy

How might changes in the labor market and oil prices affect our economy and daily lives?

The 1970s oil-shock playbook needs an update: The inflation costs remain, but the employment risks appear far smaller than they did 50 years ago. Why it matters: As the Iran war continues, there are early signs of renewed strength in the labor market. If energy disruptions pose less of a risk to jobs, the challenge for central banks shifts from managing stagflation risks to guarding against renewed price pressures. That's the takeaway from new Federal Reserve Bank of Boston research that finds an oil shock the size of what the Iran war has produced would push inflation materially higher while having essentially no effect on national employment. What they're saying: "The U.S. economy's vulnerability to oil shocks has not been eliminated, but rather reconfigured," economists wrote in the report. "Oil shocks may now pose less of a challenge for monetary policy, allowing policymakers to focus more on the greater risk to inflation." Driving the news: The researchers estimate that the U.S.-Iran conflict generated a 33% oil price shock — a magnitude that is historically significant, though not unprecedented. The U.S. economy is now structured differently than past energy crises, allowing it to absorb a shock of that magnitude with far less damage to national employment.But with a smaller hit to growth and employment, there is less downward pressure on prices to counteract rising energy costs.The Boston Fed estimates that if an oil disruption like today's hit during the mid-1970s, it would lift the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index by 2.2 percentage points and reduce national employment by 1.8 percentage point. What to watch: The oil shock is estimated to create relative winners and losers across the country, with oil-producing states faring better than oil-importing regions — differences that can leave an economic mark for as long as two years after the initial hit. The Boston Fed estimates that employment growth in Texas would be roughly 1.7 percentage point h

Iran