Time for round two of economics euphemism bingo! This time I was especially exasperated because the article in question (from BBC News) is about the China-Tibet issue, not about business or stocks or some place where the euphemisms hide something unimportant.
Let's wade right on in:
"Some say that is not practical - that an independent Tibet would not be viable. It might struggle to cope economically."
Wouldn't have enough money? Lack of resources? Lack of infrastructure?
"A "one-country, two-systems model" is one possibility. So far, that model has gone well in Hong Kong - although Hong Kong and Tibet are at very different stages of development."
OK, tell me about the differences, then. What's a 'stage of development'? Why is it important?
"When they revised their plans for Tibet in the aftermath of the late-1980s protests, China's leaders thought a programme of rapid economic development in Tibet would stifle calls for political change."
Economic development how? More money? More resources? More investment?
Tibetans are frustrated despite heavy economic investment.
Delete economic? What is economic investment? What is non-economic investment?
To me, it's just lazy. Just say what you mean. The word "economics" is not a crutch or a bin into which you sweep all the stuff you don't want to talk about. Just stop using it altogether.