Less than two weeks before the midterm elections, some Michigan voters are still deciding between Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed in the race for a US Senate seat. At an event in Detroit this week, one voter questioned why El-Sayed won’t say his ‘real name.’
Published On 22 Oct 202622 Oct 2026
Share
As leaders gathered in Bangkok, discussions highlighted the fractures between economic winners and losers.
The global economy appears to be on a fragile foundation, and the finance ministers of Argentina, Greece, Nigeria, and Thailand agree that all economies should get their houses in order.
“Ideally, when you put your fiscal house in order, it shouldn’t be because of experience,” said Kyriakos Pierrakakis, the Minister of Economy and Finance for Greece and President of the Eurogroup, during a panel discussion that took place at the annual International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank meetings in Bangkok. “It should be because of inspiration.”
Although the IMF projects global economic growth at 3.1% throughout 2026, its composition has changed.
The global economy is increasingly split between a handful of nations with AI-driven economies and those without. The IMF has upgraded AI-driven economies while it downgraded many fuel-importing nations and those affected by war.
However, AI may be a curse and a blessing.
“The global economy’s dependence on AI investment enthusiasm creates a vulnerability, with risks of disappointment cycles, as per Amara’s Law, and the potential loss of human control over AI systems,” said fellow panelist Kristalina Georgieva, IMF Managing Director.
Exacerbating the situation are growing excessive export-import imbalances. Developing countries struggle to compete with export-oriented countries that have built their manufacturing base over decades. At the same time, developing economies struggle to compete for capital against an economy that takes in capital for productive use but leaves little for the rest of the world.
“The biggest source of imbalance comes from the two largest economies, China and the United States: China not having enough domestic consumption, exporting a lot, and the U.S. the opposite, not saving enough, having a high level of debt and deficit,” she said.
It’s best for a country to put its fiscal house in order during periods of economic calm, but human nature tends to act only amid a crisis, said Georgieva. “Nonetheless, we have excellent examples of countries that have brought back fiscal discipline. They have taken the reforms, structural reforms that promote growth.”
The formula for building a resilient economy is discipline, transparency, and consistency, which, according to Olayemi Cardoso, Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, build credibility, said Cardoso, who spoke on the panel.
To address a persistent currency crisis and the loss of investor confidence, Nigeria eliminated its fuel subsidy in 2023 and, in June 2024, implemented multiple foreign exchange rates.
“These should have been done a long time ago, but they were not done,” he said.
The central bank also enacted an aggressive 800-basis-point (bp) increase in 2024, including a single 400-bp increase. As a result, the central bank brought inflation down by about 20 percentage points, to about 15%, and raised foreign reserves to their highest level in 18 years.
“Painful though they were, it brought back credibility because we were consistent in saying certain things and doing them,” said Cardoso.
In Argentina, the government eliminated its fiscal deficit, which was 5% of GDP, by cutting spending by 30% and growing the economy for the third consecutive year through increased exports. These measures helped bring inflation down to approximately 30% today from 211% in 2023.
“We have a fiscal surplus, a commercial surplus, and a current account surplus,” said panelist Luis Caputo, Argentina’s Minister of Economy. “The way we will continue in the following years will be by fulfilling our goal of reducing the weight of the state in the economy.”
Thailand aims to maintain macroeconomic stability amid an energy shock and a few years of supply-chain fragmentation. Even as part of the AI value chain, it has kept sovereign bond yields low.
“Our government 10-year yield is around 2.3%, so much lower than the U.S. and Europe, thanks to fiscal discipline,” said Ekniti Nitithanprapas, Thailand’s Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.
The Thai government has also made structural changes to turn these economic shocks into opportunities for low-income small and mid-sized enterprises by helping them adapt to current shocks and prepare for future ones.
It also expects to work more closely with its ASEAN partners to expand trade and investment opportunities to establish a resilient economy.
“For example, 22% of our trade is with ASEAN countries compared to 60% for the E.U.,” he said. “So, we could do more trade together.”
In Europe, the EU is working to close gaps in its pan-European reforms, which each member state must implement.
“Fragmentation in Europe is a strategic tax,” said Greece’s Pierrakakis. “The IMF has made a calculation that the barriers that exist in services or in manufacturing are equivalent to having a 40%-44% tariff for manufacturing.”
Even if countries can build a resilient economy, Argentina’s Caputo was skeptical that it would withstand future shocks.
“It looks like these shocks are going to take longer than anyone of us would have anticipated or hoped,” he said. “If that is the case, resilience by definition will have to last longer. And we don’t want to rely that much on that because resilience is there until it is not anymore.”
Caputo also noted that the whole world wouldn’t need to collapse to create a need for resilience. “Just one important country getting into trouble could probably generate systemic risk and affect us all.”
When questioned about France’s current economic distress, Greece’s Pierrakakis responded, “Well, I would say first we’re mindful, but we’re not alert. And we’re not alert in the sense that we know the fundamentals are there and they’re strong. If there’s one key word about Europe, it’s resilience.”
Rob Daly covers the economy and fintech. He can be reached at rdaly@gfmag.com
The slate of statewide measures on the Nov. 3 ballot provides voters two opportunities to tax the rich, which in past years has proved tantalizing to California’s left-leaning electorate.
Only one of those measures has strong voter support, however, and it’s not the proposition that’s attracted nationwide attention, ignited a nearly quarter-billion-dollar political slugfest and created a rift among top leaders in the Democratic Party.
Likely voters expressed middling support for Proposition 40, a one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ assets intended to compensate for an impending $100 billion in federal healthcare funding cuts. They were far more likely to back Proposition 3, a ballot measure that would make permanent a tax increase on the wealthy that funds schools and healthcare, according to a poll released Friday by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that is co-sponsored by The Times.
Proposition 3 appears to be a much less controversial endeavor, which may explain why it has more voter support. The ballot measure would extend a tax enacted in 2012 on individuals who earn at least $360,000 a year that is set to expire in 2031. Proposition 40 proposes a brand-new tax on billionaires and is opposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who fears that it could hurt the state’s finances in the long run.
“When you’re going about taxing the billionaires’ assets, I mean that’s something kind of new and different, and it’s risky, and the governor’s against it, and you know a lot of people are expressing caution about it,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the poll.
Voters are deeply concerned about income disparity but also skeptical about the unusual approach of the billionaire tax.
Proposition 40 has drawn the greatest attention and campaign spending of the 14 ballot measures voters will decide on Nov. 3.
In the poll, 45% of likely voters support the proposal, while 42% oppose it and 13% are undecided. That’s a decline in support compared with six weeks ago, when 48% of likely voters supported it while 41% opposed it, and comes after nearly $100 million of spending on television ads, social media messages and mailers, largely from opponents.
The billionaire tax was crafted by a healthcare union in response to legislation passed by congressional Republicans and signed by President Trump last year that could result in millions of Californians losing Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals shuttering and other healthcare services being slashed unless a new funding source is found.
The proposal would retroactively apply to billionaires who lived in California as of Jan. 1, prompting some to preemptively move out of the state. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on education programs and food assistance.
There are two counterproposals on the ballot that would nullify the wealth tax if either receives more votes than Proposition 40, and they have raised $144 million. Voters are torn about Proposition 41, which would prohibit any new state taxes from being excluded from a voter-approved cap that restricts how much tax revenue the state can spend each year. The billionaire tax would have such an exclusion. Voters also are divided on Proposition 42, which would prohibit new taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts and other assets and would limit situations in which a ballot measure or state lawmakers can impose or raise taxes retroactively — both of which are essential parts of the billionaire tax initiative.
Proposition 42 has greater support, with 43% backing it, 34% opposing it and the remainder undecided, according to the poll. Even more voters were uncertain about Proposition 41: 3 in 10 said they were undecided, while 37% said they supported it and 33% said they planned to vote against it.
The large number of undecided voters this close to the election points to voters being overwhelmed by the sheer number of statewide ballot measures, DiCamillo said.
“It’s confusion,” he said, adding that many voters may make a decision once they receive more ballot information.
That said, the fact that none of these proposals has the support of more than 50% of likely voters doesn’t bode well for their prospects, DiCamillo said.
Ballots will begin arriving in the mailboxes of the state’s 23.2 million voters in days.
Democratic voters outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1 in California, but the party’s leaders are deeply divided about the billionaire tax, given the volatile state budget’s reliance on the wealthy. Newsom, who is pondering a 2028 presidential campaign, and the two men vying to replace him — Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton — oppose it. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), a potential 2028 White House contender, supports it, as does the California Democratic Party.
Additionally, Dave Regan, president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and architect of the ballot measure, has come under scrutiny. Regan has been accused of threatening and intimidating women who worked for the union’s parent organization, and of physically assaulting one, according to reporting by The Times. He was also accused of trying to extort SEIU’s state council, suggesting that it could face an investigation over “governance issues” if it did not support Proposition 40, according to an investigation commissioned by SEIU.
Regan has denied these claims, describing them as a “smear” campaign orchestrated by Proposition 40 opponents.
Much less attention has been paid to Proposition 3. Californians who earn more than $360,000 now are subject to a 10.3% tax, while those who earn more than $721,000 face a 12.3% levy. The vast majority of the billions raised through this tax go to K-12 schools, while the remainder is spent on community colleges and healthcare.
The other ballot measure that is receiving national attention is Proposition 39, which would require voters to present a government-issued identification document to cast a ballot or provide a PIN or the last four digits of their Social Security number when submitting mail-in ballots.
The measure also would require the California secretary of state and county election officials to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.
The proposal comes as Trump has continued to make claims that elections, notably in California, are being rigged by Democrats. Americans are increasingly alarmed about the security and sanctity of voting, and growing fears about intimidation efforts at polling places in the midterm elections.
Fifty-two percent of likely California voters oppose the voter ID proposal, while 39% support it and 9% are undecided, according to the poll.
“It doesn’t look like it’s in a strong position,” DiCamillo said, noting that while voters have opposed it in prior polls, the opposition has grown.
Nearly one-third of voters were undecided about two other propositions:
Voters will also face questions about environmental policy, housing, recall elections and other matters, as well as statewide, congressional and local elections. Californians are fatigued by the length of the ballot.
The Berkeley IGS/Times poll findings are based on an online survey in English and Spanish of 6,989 registered California voters, 4,512 of whom are considered likely voters, on Sept. 15-20. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of about 2 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.