CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Trust in institutions shapes how societies function—from whether people follow public health guidance to whether they believe election results. Yet confidence in governments and the media has diverged sharply across countries.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, shows whether people trust the media or the government more, based on responses from nearly 34,000 people across dozens of countries.

The data comes from the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer. Respondents were asked whether they trust the government and the media to “do what is right.”

High Government Trust in the Middle East and Asia

Countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, China, and Singapore show higher trust in government than in media.

Saudi Arabia tops the list, with an 89% government trust score compared to 66% for media—a 23-point gap.

Media Trusted More in Many Western Democracies

In much of Europe and the Americas, trust tilts toward the media rather than the government.

Countries like France, Spain, the U.S., and the UK all show higher media trust scores, even though overall trust levels are relatively low.

France stands out at the bottom of the ranking, with just 30% trusting the government versus 40% trusting the media.

Large Trust Gaps Signal Institutional Tension

Kenya shows the largest pro-media gap, with media trusted by 70% compared to just 47% for government.

Conversely, Sweden, Japan, and South Korea lean more toward government trust, though with lower absolute scores than high-trust countries in Asia or the Middle East. Ireland is the lone country where trust in media and government is equal.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Trump Trade Shake-Up: Which Countries Are Winning Vs. Losing? on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Via Remix News,

France and Europe have four years to prepare for war, said Fabien Mandon, chief of the defense staff of the French Armed Forces, who cited Russia as Europe’s biggest threat.

His speech at a major naval conference outlined that France, as well as its allies, must take into account that this war will break out in the near future and that the French military must be ready by 2030.

“Today, we are preparing for war,” he said, according to BreakingDefense.

During his speech at the naval conference, Mandon stated that France is not prepared for war and the country had “an insufficient number of ships and armaments.”

He stated the nation needs “more missiles with greater range and lethality.” 

Mandon recently made headlines for stating that Europeans and the French must be ready to lose children in a war, stating:

“You have to accept that you will lose your children,” which is necessary to defeat Russia during a November speech at the National Congress of French Mayors.

His words caused national shock, while the representatives of the parliamentary parties protested sharply in connection with his comment.

As in November, he named Russia as the main source of the threat of war.

Read more here...

How does the cost of living vary across countries in 2026?

To find out, this graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, visualizes Numbeo’s Global Cost of Living Index, which measures the price of everyday expenses, including rent, relative to New York City (baseline of 100).

If a country has an index score of 80, prices are 20% lower than in New York. Scores above 100 indicate higher everyday costs.

While inflation has eased in many regions, the cost of living remains a major global challenge. Across 28 countries, home prices have risen more than 50% since 2020, and grocery costs have risen sharply in countries such as Mexico, Germany, and Malaysia, continuing to strain household budgets worldwide.

Global Cost of Living by Country

Below, we show the cost of living index for 155 countries or territories in 2026, highlighting stark differences in everyday costs around the world.

Bermuda has the highest cost of living worldwide, a British Overseas Territory synonymous with high-end real estate, luxury tourism, and offshore wealth.

Many of the world’s most expensive places, in terms of cost of living, are islands and often tax shelters or financial centers. The U.S. Virgin Islands, Jersey, and Cayman Islands all make the top 10 in the cost of living index. High concentrations of wealth, combined with heavy reliance on imports, push up prices across these island economies.

Switzerland ranks third overall, with Zurich named the world’s most expensive city in 2026. Beyond a strong Swiss franc, high wages and elevated living standards significantly drive up costs.

Singapore has the highest cost of living in Asia, placing fifth worldwide. Limited land availability has fueled high real estate prices, while the country’s reliance on imports—around 90% of its food—adds further cost pressures.

The U.S. ranks 19th globally, with a cost of living index score of 56.3. By comparison, the global median index score in 2026 stands at 30.8.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the world’s most unaffordable housing markets.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Friedrich Merz finally has a positive headline. In December, industrial orders surged. But behind the costly statistical recovery lies nothing more than the buildup of a debt-financed defense sector.

It took some lead time, but the Chancellor now finally has a success story. For December 2025, Germany’s Federal Statistics Office reported a 7.6% month-on-month jump in industrial orders. November had already provided a first boost with a rise of over 5%—right in the midst of a severe economic crisis.

Industrial production, meanwhile, fell 1.9% in December, sliding back into negative territory—a fact largely lost in the media’s cheerleading. That the once-proud German automotive industry saw a 6.3% drop in orders also barely registered amid the general sigh of relief.

But once you dissect the data and strip out large orders, a very different picture emerges. The apparent surge in orders shrinks to a mere 0.9%.

What happened? Experience shows that this comes from “Other Vehicle Manufacturing,” which jumped roughly 9.5%. This category is dominated by defense equipment. In short: the federal government’s debt-financed special fund has found its way into German military production.

Or put differently: the government can now take a public victory lap after plunging citizens into massive debt to generate a short-term statistical effect in the super-election year 2026. Nobody wants to appear a total failure.

What is celebrated as an economic turnaround is in reality a statistical masking of the transition from market-based order to a debt-fueled administrative economy.

The military buildup is basically the last gasp of a policy that, in stubborn Keynesian mode, keeps trying to replace the gaps in Germany’s industrial economy with a “managed economy.” This strategy ties up resources and personnel, diverting exactly the capital needed for real investment under better conditions.

Goods are produced that no one demands on the market. A few pockets get richer. It’s classic client politics in the Berlin–Brussels style. Nothing new in the West, really.

The Real Situation

The real state of the German economy is shown in construction. The HCOB Germany Construction PMI, a monthly leading indicator, fell in January to 44.7 points. Values below 50 signal contraction.

After a brief uptick in December to 50.3, mostly due to energy network investments, the German construction sector plunged back into recession in January—mirroring the entire Eurozone.

For four years now, this central economic sector has been essentially frozen. Investments are held back; new projects, especially commercial ones, are nowhere to be found. The sector remains in prolonged stagnation.

Excessive energy costs, Kafkaesque regulation from Brussels and Berlin, and stifling interventions like rent caps are the recipe for a recession set in stone.

Expect billion-euro programs for subsidized public housing soon, purely to create a statistical illusion of recovery.

System-Compatible Criticism

The federal government can finally breathe. Expensive for taxpayers, but apparently worth it politically. Applying Keynesianism to the defense industry is among the dumbest of political moves. Driving a nation deeper into debt to produce goods that either rust or are used destructively is maximal political nihilism—bordering on madness.

The fact that the state-friendly media celebrates this “recovery” implies two things: complete media submission to government goals, and statistical validation to continue reshaping German society into a green, militarized command economy.

Silence from German business leadership confirms that politics has morally inoculated this strategy. The perpetuated narrative of an imminent Russian invasion now legitimizes the defense buildup.

Similarly, under the Green Deal, years of effort have embedded the fairy tale of saving the world via CO2 reduction deep in public consciousness, with most voters still supporting the course. Criticism now appears climate-hostile, irresponsible, and anti-scientific.

Compliance is no longer enforced through coercion, but through reshaping business rationality. Every new regulation or CO2 levy creates companies that survive only within the state’s subsidy architecture.

Result: media-friendly, calibrated language dominates discussions of “bureaucracy relief.” It is system-compatible fine-tuning, subtly orchestrated by Brussels. No one risks reputational loss in this highly repressive media environment.

Business has learned to couch criticism to avoid upsetting the Kaiser while remaining eligible for support. We see conditioned obsequiousness leading us steadily toward a new socialism.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Europe is widely known for its generous work-life balance policies, and paid time off is a major part of that reputation.

Across the continent, employees are legally entitled to a combination of paid vacation days and public holidays, with totals varying widely by country.

This map, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, shows the minimum total number of paid leave days in Europe in 2025.

The data for this visualization comes from World Population Review.

Europe’s Most Generous Leave Policies

Several countries stand out for offering more than 40 days of paid leave annually. Andorra tops the ranking with 45 days, including 31 paid vacation days and 14 paid public holidays.

Countries such as France, Luxembourg, Malta, and Russia also provide more than 40 days of total paid leave.

The regional average sits at 33 days, and many countries fall close to this level. Nations such as Czechia, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, and Belarus offer between 32 and 34 days of paid leave per year.

Lower Leave Totals at Europe’s Edges

At the lower end of the spectrum, San Marino offers the fewest paid leave days at just 10, followed by Jersey, Moldova, and Montenegro, all of which fall well below the European average.

Meanwhile, countries like Germany, Belgium, and Ireland sit near the middle, offering around 30 days of total paid leave—still higher than many non-European economies.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Rise of Senior Populations by Region on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Via Middle East Eye

The Israeli government on Sunday approved sweeping changes to land registration and civil control in the occupied West Bank, a move Palestinians say breaches the Oslo Accords and advances de facto annexation.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Defense Minister Israel Katz said the changes would "dramatically" alter West Bank policy, paving the way for expanded settlements and land seizure. In a joint statement, they said the measures would remove legal barriers on Israeli settlers and accelerate settlement development.

Katz said the aim was to give settlers equal "legal and civil rights", while Smotrich said the move would "normalize life in the West Bank" and vowed to "continue to kill the idea of a Palestinian state."

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said the policy was designed to deepen annexation of the West Bank and violated agreements signed with Israel, including the Oslo Accords, according to the Wafa news agency.

Rawhi Fattouh, chairman of the Palestinian National Council, described the decisions as "racist and dangerous", accusing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government of imposing new colonial realities on the ground.

Several Palestinian factions, including Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, also condemned the move.

The Oslo Accords, signed in 1993 and 1995 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), established limited Palestinian self-rule in parts of the West Bank and Gaza, dividing the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C as a temporary framework for a future Palestinian state - a goal that has never been realized.

Muayyad Shaaban, head of the Palestinian Commission Against the Wall and Settlements, said the Israeli decisions represent a dangerous escalation that undermines international law and adds to crimes against Palestinians.

The Palestinian National Initiative said the measures drive the final nail into the Oslo Accords and open the door to large-scale land seizures benefiting Israeli settlers. 

The Yesha Council, which represents Israeli settlements, celebrated the decision, saying it "entrenches Israeli sovereignty on the ground."

Peace Now, an NGO monitoring settlement expansion, said Netanyahu has effectively chosen to “topple the Palestinian Authority” and "impose de facto annexation", warning the moves go far beyond Area C and break barriers to massive land theft across the West Bank.

What are the changes? 

Under the new Israeli measures, the military would be able to enforce regulations on so-called unlicensed buildings in Areas A and B, citing heritage and archaeological sites, allowing for the confiscation of Palestinian land and demolition of structures.

The changes would also lift secrecy on West Bank land registries, enabling settlers to identify Palestinian landowners and purchase land directly. Exposing ownership records could make it easier for settlers to forge claims over Palestinian land, a tactic widely documented and likely to accelerate land seizures across the occupied territory.

The measures also ease the sale of Palestinian land to Israelis and overturn a Jordanian-era law prohibiting transfers to non-Palestinians. 

Planning, licensing, and construction powers in Hebron would be transferred from the Palestinian municipality to the Israeli army, expanding control over building permits, development, resources, and security. An independent local authority will also be established for the Israeli settlement in Hebron.

The Hebron municipality condemned the move as “illegitimate and dangerous”. Under the 1997 Hebron Protocol, the city was divided into Hebron 1, under Palestinian control, and Hebron 2, under Israeli authority, covering southern and eastern sections.

The new policy also affects the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, a site holy to Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

The Palestinian presidency warned that any violation of Islamic or Christian holy sites, including the mosque, is unacceptable. In January, Israel barred the mosque’s Palestinian directors and seized planning rights over part of the site, violating longstanding arrangements.

The policy comes amid rising settler attacks and access restrictions on Palestinian holy sites since October 2023, including Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus.

A record 9.5 billion passenger trips are expected during this year’s Chinese New Year or Spring Festival travel surge, according to the National Development and Reform Commission.

The 40 day period between February 2 and March 13 is expected to see record highs in terms of passenger volumes for both rail trips (exceeding 540 million passengers) and civil aviation trips (exceeding 95 million passengers).

However, as Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports, despite rail and air travel for the Chinese New Year gaining popularity, travel by road is still the most popular mode of transport for the holiday.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Eighty percent, or 7.6 billion out of the projected 9.5 billion trips taken on the occasion, will be self-driving trips, according to Chinese authorities, with the rest taken up by other road transport.

The New Year falls on February 17 this year.

The year of the horse starts amidst a tough economic climate in China due to an ongoing property market crisis, low consumption and high youth unemployment.

Global military spending is often measured in massive national budgets, where the United States and China dominate the conversation.

But looking at defense spending on a per-person basis tells a very different story, one where smaller countries rise to the top.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, ranks major countries by how much they spent on defense per citizen in 2024, revealing which nations invest the most in military power relative to their population - and how countries like the U.S. compare when spending is measured per person rather than in total dollars.

Data comes from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Why Israel Leads the World in Defense Spending Per Capita

Israel ranks first, spending nearly $5,000 per person on defense in 2024.

This figure reflects the country’s ongoing security challenges and mandatory military service.

Despite a total defense budget of $47 billion - small compared to global superpowers - the per-person cost is unmatched.

Below are the world’s 30 largest military spenders, ranked by defense spending per capita:

Several smaller or wealthy nations rank near the top of the list. Singapore spends over $2,500 per person, driven by its strategic location and emphasis on technological superiority. Norway and Denmark also appear in the top 10, supported by high incomes and growing commitments to NATO.

How Major Powers Compare

The U.S. ranks second overall, with nearly $2,900 spent per person, reflecting both its enormous military budget and large population.

China, by contrast, ranks much lower at $221 per capita despite spending more than $300 billion in total.

Meanwhile, European powers like Germany, France, and the U.K. cluster in the middle of the ranking, balancing defense commitments with larger populations.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: Countries With the Highest Cost of Violence on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.