China No Longer Needs Germany


Posted Originally on August 17, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

German business lobby warns of unfair trade practices by China | Reuters

Germany spent decades building one of the most successful industrial economies in the world and then its politicians began dismantling the very foundations that made that possible. Reuters is now reporting that Germany’s trade deficit with China exploded to roughly €55 billion during the first half of 2026, up from €40 billion during the same period last year. German exports to China collapsed by more than 12% to less than €37 billion while imports from China surged 8.9% to €91.8 billion. This is not simply a trade imbalance. Germany is discovering that China increasingly does not need what Germany is selling.

China was Germany’s second-largest export market as recently as 2021 when German companies sold €104 billion worth of goods there. China has now fallen all the way to ninth place among German export destinations, behind economies as small as Austria and Switzerland. Think about that for a moment. German industry spent decades treating China as one of its primary engines of growth, and now Austria is buying more German goods than China.

The politicians will blame Trump, tariffs, China, Putin, COVID, climate change, or whatever excuse happens to be fashionable this week. They will never look in the mirror. Germany voluntarily destroyed its competitive energy structure, abandoned nuclear power, severed itself from cheap Russian energy and embraced an EU regulatory regime that makes producing almost anything more expensive. Meanwhile, China did what any rational industrial nation would do. It invested in manufacturing, infrastructure, technology, energy, supply chains, robotics, batteries, automobiles, and domestic production.

China learned from the West and then began replacing the West. Germany taught China how to manufacture many of the sophisticated products China once imported. German corporations poured capital and technology into China because labor was cheaper and the Chinese market was enormous. Beijing never intended to remain permanently dependent upon European engineering. China used foreign investment to climb the technological ladder and develop its own domestic supply chains. Corinne Abele of Germany Trade & Invest told Reuters that falling German exports reflect China’s increasing focus on domestic value chains. Commerzbank economist Vincent Stamer reached the more important conclusion: China’s declining reliance on Germany demonstrates that it is becoming increasingly independent of Western powers and catching up technologically.

This is precisely what Western politicians refuse to understand about China. They still speak about China as though it were the China of 1995, producing cheap toys, textiles, and plastic junk for Walmart. That China no longer exists and Beijing is determined to force the world to see it as an economic powerhouse. China produces electric vehicles, batteries, solar technology, industrial machinery, electronics, drones, ships, high-speed rail equipment, and increasingly sophisticated technology. Reuters recently described the current export wave as “China Shock 2.0,” with China gaining enormous market share in advanced manufacturing sectors such as EVs, batteries, and solar cells.

Germany is being squeezed from both directions because the entire German economic model was based on globalization remaining frozen in time. Germany imported cheap energy, manufactured high-value industrial products, and exported them to China and the United States. Berlin assumed those arrangements would continue forever.

The automobile industry demonstrates the problem better than anything else. Germany once possessed an almost mythical reputation for automotive engineering. Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche represented German industrial superiority. Then politicians forced the industry toward electric vehicles while China spent years building the battery supply chain, securing critical minerals and developing enormous manufacturing scale. Europe created the demand through regulation while China positioned itself to supply it.

Chinese EV manufacturers are now competing directly with European manufacturers on price, technology, software, batteries and increasingly quality. German manufacturers are consequently being squeezed inside China itself, a market they once expected would provide decades of growth. Reuters notes that the pressure from Chinese competition and American tariffs is already contributing to major job reductions at industrial giants including Volkswagen.

There is another dimension here that the politicians will not discuss. German corporations themselves increasingly manufacture inside China rather than export finished products from Germany. That means even when a German company sells something to a Chinese consumer, the economic benefit does not necessarily flow back through a German factory employing German workers. The multinational corporation may survive while the domestic industrial base contracts.

German companies are producing more inside China itself.

China has also overtaken the United States again as Germany’s largest overall trading partner. Total German-Chinese trade exceeded €128 billion during the first half of 2026, approximately €3 billion more than trade with the United States. Yet the composition of that trade is changing dramatically because Germany is buying far more from China than China is buying from Germany.

Germany is therefore becoming increasingly dependent upon Chinese production at precisely the same time China is becoming less dependent upon German production.

Germany imports the products. China acquires the manufacturing capacity. Germany regulates industry. China expands it. Germany worries about carbon emissions. China worries about market share. Germany’s politicians talk endlessly about strategic autonomy while implementing policies that make their own industries less competitive.

The numbers are now exposing the consequences. Germany’s Federal Statistical Office reported that imports from China were already up 6.2% during the first five months of 2026 to €72.4 billion. China remained Germany’s most important source of imports. Germany’s overall merchandise trade with China had already reached €252.4 billion in 2025, allowing China to reclaim its position as Germany’s largest trading partner.

This is bigger than Germany. Europe is losing its industrial position because Brussels believes prosperity can be legislated into existence. You cannot tax energy, regulate businesses into submission, impose endless environmental mandates, increase labor costs, suffocate entrepreneurs and then demand that European companies compete against China.

Capital does not care about political speeches. It moves to where it is treated best.

China certainly has enormous domestic problems, including its property crisis, weak consumer demand and indebted local governments. This should not be portrayed as China becoming economically invincible. Reuters reported second-quarter growth of only 4.3%, while retail sales actually contracted 0.6% in May before increasing just 1.3% in June. Beijing is responding to domestic weakness partly by pushing manufacturing outward through exports, which only increases the competitive pressure on Europe.

This is why the trade numbers matter. China does not have to possess a perfect economy to displace European manufacturing. It simply has to remain more competitive than Europe.

Netanyahu Turns on Britain


Posted Originally on Aug 17, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Binyamin Netanyahu has said that the UK is known as the “Islamic Republic  of Britain”, stating that Israel is at war with Iran to prevent a “second”  Islamic country from obtaining nuclear

The relationship between Israel and Britain is deteriorating in a way that would have been almost unthinkable only a few years ago. Benjamin Netanyahu has now taken a direct verbal shot at Britain, referring to it as the “Islamic Republic of Britain” and invoking the joke that Britain could become the first Islamist country with nuclear weapons. This is no longer some disagreement behind closed doors over Gaza. Netanyahu is openly mocking one of Israel’s longstanding Western allies while Britain’s government has moved steadily away from the unconditional support Israel once enjoyed.

Netanyahu made the remarks while discussing how British attitudes toward Israel have changed since the 1967 Six-Day War. After praising Winston Churchill’s grandson for being a “lover of Israel,” Netanyahu said, “Just try to find that kind of attitude in Britain now,” before referring to the country as the “Islamic Republic of Britain.” He then recalled the remark that Britain would become the first Islamist nation to acquire nuclear weapons and connected that directly to Israel’s confrontation with Iran.

This is Netanyahu’s style. Anyone who questions his government’s policies eventually becomes an enemy of Israel. Britain, France, Canada, the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, journalists, humanitarian organizations, and even members of the Israeli opposition have all been attacked when they refuse to fall in line. The distinction between supporting Israel’s existence and supporting Netanyahu personally has been deliberately blurred. Criticize Netanyahu, and suddenly you are accused of abandoning Israel and antisemitism.

London supported Israel after October 7, defended its right to self-defense and maintained a relationship that goes back to the very creation of the modern Israeli state. Britain has also confronted antisemitism domestically, and only last month banned Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a national-security threat. Netanyahu nevertheless appears willing to insult the entire country because its government will no longer provide him with unquestioning political support.

The deterioration has been building for years. Britain suspended some arms export licenses to Israel, halted free-trade negotiations and sanctioned Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich over what the British government described as repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian civilians. London joined Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway in imposing those sanctions. That was an extraordinary development because these were not sanctions against some obscure settler organization. Britain sanctioned sitting ministers of the Israeli government.

Then came the Palestinian question. Britain’s movement toward recognizing a Palestinian state infuriated Netanyahu, who accused the British government of rewarding Hamas. The relationship deteriorated further as criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza grew across Europe. By July, Israeli officials were openly describing relations with the new British government as effectively “frozen.”

This is becoming a serious geopolitical problem for Israel that Netanyahu apparently refuses to acknowledge. Israel cannot indefinitely alienate Europe and assume Washington will compensate for every diplomatic relationship it destroys. Netanyahu has even recently rejected a U.S.-backed Gaza peace proposal, although Gaza has been bombed into oblivion and hardly exists. Israel is increasingly behaving as though its allies require Israel more than Israel requires its allies. That is a dangerous assumption for a nation of roughly 10 million people surrounded by a region of hundreds of millions.

Now is a poor time to abandon European allies. Turkey has become increasingly confrontational toward Israel, and Ankara sees an enormous opportunity emerging from Israel’s deteriorating relations with Europe. Netanyahu may think he is simply insulting Britain, but geopolitics does not operate according to personal grudges. Every ally you drive away creates an opening for somebody else.

Britain certainly has serious problems with uncontrolled migration, social fragmentation, radical Islam and the political establishment’s refusal to confront any of it. But that makes his statement even more reckless because he is exploiting Britain’s domestic divisions to attack its government over foreign policy. That will not strengthen relations between the two countries. It will poison them further.

Israel once enjoyed extraordinary bipartisan support throughout the West. That consensus is breaking apart, particularly among younger generations. Netanyahu appears to respond to this deterioration by attacking anyone who questions him, which merely accelerates the process. You cannot insult entire countries into supporting you.

Netanyahu should be very careful what he wishes for. Britain helped shape the political order from which the modern state of Israel emerged. Today, an Israeli prime minister is publicly ridiculing Britain while relations with Europe continue to deteriorate. The Middle East is realigning rapidly. Israel cannot afford to discover too late that Netanyahu succeeded in winning every argument while losing its allies.

Giving Back


G

Posted Originally on Aug 17, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

ConfNextGen 7 25 26 1

COMMENT: Hello Marty,

I hope you are well. I’ve been thinking of you and hope all is going well on your end.

Peter and I went to visit a customer, Safran, in Sarasota the same week I attended your conference in Tampa. You looked energetic and healthy. It was great to see so many young people engaged and involved. I also saw your posting for the 2026 conference, and I’m really looking forward to it. Possibility for Technical Analysis or Geometry of Time?

You should read some of the crazy contracts that we have to agree to, it leans 99% to their favor , really unfortunate. Plus, the big “Primes” in aerospace are asking the Tier 2 suppliers to Tier 3 (Sunset) to push payments out 120 days. I asked them would they like not getting paid for 4 months?

How are you doing? Josephine and Napoleon? I hope we can grab a cup of coffee one day and catch up.

Take care, and I’ll see you in December!

K

2 Napoleon Josy

REPLY: Josephine and Napoleon are best buds. It was the best thing I did to get my dog a dog. Yes, there is brewing a credit crunch as we move into 2028. A number of our institutional clients are issuing bonds locking in rates. I have suggested that they look to private equity to lock it in rather than bid the market up. With war on the horizon, rates will press higher and that is separate from domestic inflation.

The Tampa Conference was really great to see nearly half the audience was students. Some people are greedy and just seek how much money they can get even if they would not be able to spend it. They leave nothing behind and often when they finally die begrudgingly trying to hold on to that last breath, they have nothing for they cannot take it with them. They are despised and might as well put then in black trash bad and put them out for the next trash collection. They are nothing but solent green to feed the worms. They never had any purpose in life.

Quarter spinning

No matter what the subject, there are two sides to every coin. Unfortunately within humanity there are the greedy ones who measure life only by how much they can accumulate, even if they’ll never live long enough to spend it. They leave nothing behind. And when death finally comes, they cling to their last breath as if it’s a possession they can hold onto. Yet, they take nothing with them. They’re despised. You might as well toss them in a black trash bag and set them out for collection. They’re nothing but Soylent Green – food for the worms. They never had a purpose in this life and assume if they had more than someone else they were better some how. They never even looked for a purpose in life. They are just consumed with greed and leave nothing behind.

Giving Back to the Next Generation

I was raised with the belief that I have a purpose in life, and that it is my duty to discover what that purpose is. We are given only this one journey through life, and with it, the opportunity to acquire knowledge. It then becomes our responsibility to pass that knowledge on to the next generation.

As for the socialists—they are the greedy ones. They invented inheritance taxes because all they see is money. In their view, it was somehow unfair that one parent could pass something on to their children while another could not.

I am undertaking this work in the twilight of my years, not at the start of my career, and not for money. I am fully aware that my work will never reach the mainstream, because those who despise me will do everything in their power to prevent it from gaining traction. That is to be expected—new ideas are rarely appreciated in their own time; they are only embraced after the originator has long since departed.

This conference was always meant to be a passing on of what I have learned. My goals were twofold: first, to show that you can never truly predict where life will take you; and second, to demonstrate that much of what is taught in economics and finance is still rooted in the gold standard era, when currencies were fixed against the dollar. No one ever seriously considered what would happen under a floating exchange rate system—one that was, after all, supposed to be only temporary.

Milton Friedman 1953 Book

It was Milton Friedman who came to listen to me speak about the FOREX markets and how I was getting called in from country by country all because of a currency crises one way or another. It was Milton who told me what I was doing as a trader was important for this was a whole new field that had to be experienced to understand.

ECM Cover Blue

I am trying to have this book to hand out at the December WEC on the Business Cycle and the discovery of the ECM. This is so important because both Marx and Keynes saw recessions or depressions as a FLAW in capitalism so the strived to eliminate the business cycle. Most economists have struggled to try to control it at minimum or devise schemes to eliminate it like “You will Own Nothing and Be Happy.”

Modern_Analysis_ Geometry of Time

This, the Geometry of Time and Modern Analysis for the 21st Century (Technical Analysis) are what I am trying to pass on to the next generation before Scotty beams me up..

Manipulating 5th Edition
Understanding the World Economy
ThePlotToSeizeRussisimg
Fiat_Currency 2nd Edition

I just did the Understanding the World Economy, adding to the previous works: Fiat, Plot to Seize Russia, and Manipulating the World Economy. As I said at the conference, I was a trader, not an academic. All major advancements typically come from the outside looking in. Even the discovery that the computer was forecasting wars was NEVER my intent. Like penicillin, which was discovered by mistake, there are always uninteded consequences. The establishment always rejects it or in my case they call  it “controversial” since they cannot disprove that the business cycles exists or all the forecasts the model has produced.

The Two Versions of AI


Posted Originally on Aug 16, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

AI Artifical Intelligence

QUESTION: I spoke with my son-in-law who is into the AI revolution and when he heard I followed you, he said oh, the legend. Not only did he know all about you, but he said you were the classic AI developer and that they thought they could beat Socrates, but he said they cannot get AI to understand the world economy. He explained that your classic AI had rules, and the neutral nets have no rules and they have gone rouge and nobody known how to reverse this since these neural nets ignore rules. He said people remain in awe of Socrates to this day.

What is you take on this. Are there two divisions in AI?

Victor

ANSWER: Yes. I experimented with the neutral nets and realized they would never be able to be trained to see the world no less trade a market. They could read a Biblical parable but they would not trulu comprehend the moral message. They could make a good review, but they then are incapable of apply a lesson from that to a different field. They are not capable of curiosity and will never reach the level of a true sentient lifeform.

IBM Watson

I have stated that Socrates in NOT a neutral net. I guess they call what I did as “classic AI” like a vintage car. I codes my experience and how to trade and I explained how the complexity of the entire world economy and how it functions. It is completely a different approach.   The neural nets are great for research, but they cannot discover something entirely new. That is why IBM spent $4 billion on Watson and it failed to discover the cure for cancer. They sold it for scrap.

Britain – the End of an Empire?


Posted Originally on Aug 16, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Andy Burnham has not maintained Keir Starmer’s migrant policy in full. Instead, he has broken with his predecessor by canceling a key Starmer policy and is publicly advocating for a different approach. Burham aims for “fundamental changes” and has focused on tougher border controls while increasing support for genuine asylum seekers. The migrants in the UK receive a specific form of government support for basic living costs:, which amounts to £45 per week per person for food, clothing, and toiletries. This is often loaded onto a special debit car

Prime Minister Andy Burnham is not considering spreading the migrats all over “all parts of the country need to play their part.” That means he now expects middle-class families to accept large numbers of asylum seekers so the poorest areas are no longer the only ones carrying the load.

This approach obviously does nothing to stop the root of the problem, the sheer number of migrants washing up in boats. It simply advertises better accommodation to the next wave of illegal arrivals.

Migrant Throws Homeowner Out of Her House

In essence, Burnham’s plan is about a government-led, large-scale rehousing program using dedicated sites and public management of housing stock, not a request for middle-class families to act as hosts in their own homes.

Healey_Capture_of_Russian_tanker_protects_British_people_

Andy Burnham named former Defense Secretary John Healey, 66, served as a junior Treasury minister between 2002 and 2007, to be his Chancellor of the Exchequer in a surprise move by the UK’s new prime minister that fueled speculation about a bigger increase in military spending. Healey is a serious Neocon.

While his appointment to the second most important post in government upended expectations in Westminster. Little is known about his position on economic issues, beyond a general assessment that he represents a safe pair of hands and has advocated for more money to fund defense.

Burnham told NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that Healey’s appointment was a “signal of his intent” on defense, according to a readout from his office. Healey told reporters that Burnham’s government “will meet our commitments on defense to our international allies.

IBBPUS Y Tech 8 14 26

There does not appear to be any shift in policy with regard to geopolitics and pressing with war with Russia. Our forecasts for the next two remains remain unchanged and it does not look very good for the UK with Burnham.

The Computer IS Showing We’re Heading Into WW3


Posted Originally on Aug 15, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Fake Forecasts


Posted Originally on Aug 14, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

shutterstock_2828694989

QUESTION:  Marty,

I’m seeing online sources-videos, comments and AI say that “Socrates model forecasts a collapse in paper derivative markets, explicitly warning investors that paper spot prices on exchanges will completely disconnect from physical metal reality as physical shortages mount and sovereign debt crises escalate.”

I subscribe to Socrates and watch all your interviews and have never heard you discuss this. Is this accurate?

I’d appreciate if you could set the record straight with a quick reply.
Thank you in advance.

Alex

ANSWER: This AI is becoming a problem where people can make posts mimicking my voice and I have even seen videos while other try to prevent people from reading our site. Some people with self-interests try to make false forecasts that we have NOT made to influence people to buy often in the metals.

German 1925 Rentenmark

There will not be a collapse in derivative markets and this rush to spot metals. There is not enough metal in the world to end currency and only after 2032 are we looking at a redenomination of assets. After the hyperinflation and the fall of the Weimar Republic in Germany, they came out with a new currency in 1925 and it was backed by real estate. This is what I am talking about. Tangible assets from metals, real estate, shares in companies, all make that transition from one currency to the next.

There are people who hat my guts because I have not agreed with them. They have been adamant that derivatives hold gold prices down. They have taken the same position concerning gold leasing, which they also insist suppresses gold.

Influence

I am tired of all the BS with bankers who lose money blaming me that I have too much influence to some goldbugs who say the same thing as if I was eliminate gold would soar. Markets are far bigger than anyone from central banks to an individual.

GCNYNF M Tech Euro 8 14 26
GCNYNF M Tech 8 14 26

Everyone acts in their own self interest. Compare gold in USD and Euro. You will see that in Euro, gold made new lows into August. In USD, the los war July intraday and a close it was June. I have been the only international adviser with offices around the world from China to Dubai. Giving advice to buy with no regard for the currency is not being a responsible analyst. This is why Socrates allows you to take any market and replot it in whatever currency you like. Telling an American in July to buy gold for a bounce would lead to a loss for a European.

That forecast is clearly ABSURD and it is not by me nore Socrates. I recommend that you stay with our site to verify any such claim.

Categories:Armstrong

Chinese v American Views on WAR with Taiwan


Posted Originally on Aug 14, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

China v Taiwan 3

The Center for Strategic and International Studies conducted an extraordinary survey of 64 leading experts on China, Taiwan, and cross-Strait relations, including 28 former senior U.S. government officials, 23 former government policy and intelligence analysts, and 13 academics and think-tank experts. What their answers reveal is not that China is preparing to invade Taiwan tomorrow, as the neocons would like everyone to believe, but that Beijing remains willing to wait so long as nobody crosses the line of formal Taiwanese independence. Some 84% said Beijing is willing to wait for unification but will not accept the status quo permanently, while only 10% believed China seeks unification at the earliest opportunity. Not one of the 64 experts believed Beijing would ever accept an independent Taiwan.

This is precisely why Taiwan has become so dangerous. The West keeps portraying the conflict as if Xi Jinping wakes up every morning staring at a calendar trying to decide when to launch an amphibious invasion. Yet 83% of these experts said China did not plan to use significant kinetic force against Taiwan by 2027, and 80% said China’s enormous 2022 military exercises did not indicate Beijing had accelerated its timetable. Only 6% of respondents outside the former senior government group saw 2027 as a hard deadline, while not one former senior U.S. official did. The obsession with 2027 has nevertheless become extremely useful for the military establishment because every supposed deadline becomes another justification for weapons, deployments, bases, and spending.

The survey found that 44% believed Beijing has a hard deadline of 2049, the centennial of the People’s Republic, while 42% believed China could wait indefinitely provided unification remains possible. This is an important distinction because China thinks in terms of generations while Western politicians think in terms of the next election. Beijing does not need to invade Taiwan if economic, political, and military pressure can gradually change the situation in its favor. Only 20% of those surveyed believed China even possessed a coherent roadmap for peaceful unification, which tells us this is not some perfectly scripted invasion plan sitting in Xi’s desk drawer.

TaiwanMagnified

Where the numbers become alarming is not an unprovoked invasion but what happens when politicians begin crossing China’s red lines. More than three-quarters of the experts, 77%, believed China would invade within six months if Taiwan formally declared independence. Among former senior U.S. officials, that number was 79%. Even some of those who did not expect an immediate invasion believed Beijing would respond with a blockade or enormous military exercises. This is why politicians encouraging Taiwan toward formal independence are playing with the lives of 23 million people. They can deliver all the speeches they want about democracy from Washington, London, or Brussels, but they will not be the civilians sitting underneath the missiles if their political experiment goes wrong.

Not one expert believed an explicit American commitment to defend Taiwan would cause China to invade immediately, but 64% believed Beijing would respond strongly enough to provoke a U.S.-China or China-Taiwan crisis, while another 31% expected a more limited negative response. Only two of the 64 experts believed formally committing America to Taiwan’s defense would actually deter China from using force because Beijing already assumes that the United States will intervene anyway.

A direct invasion is not even the most likely path toward conflict. Only 8% of the experts described an amphibious invasion within ten years as likely, while 63% called it possible and 27% unlikely. Force short of invasion received much higher probabilities, with 52% saying deliberate escalation such as a blockade was likely or very likely. An accidental military incident was considered even more dangerous, with 34% saying a collision or accident around the Taiwan Strait was likely and another 22% calling it very likely. When warships and aircraft from opposing nuclear powers continually operate around the same small body of water, war does not require some grand master plan. It requires one mistake followed by politicians who refuse to back down.

A later CSIS survey of American and Taiwanese experts reinforces that point. Roughly 90% of U.S. experts and 62% of Taiwanese experts believed China already possessed the capability to impose a law-enforcement-led quarantine that substantially reduces trade into Taiwan. Around 80% of American experts and 60% of Taiwanese experts believed Beijing could execute a PLA blockade, while Taiwanese experts were considerably more skeptical that China could successfully carry out an invasion. If Beijing wanted to coerce Taiwan during the following five years, experts considered a quarantine the most likely option. If China decided it wanted immediate unification, however, approximately 80% regarded a highly kinetic joint blockade as likely or very likely.

Taiwan ECM 2

This is where the economic consequences become enormous because Taiwan does not need to be invaded for the world economy to be thrown into chaos. A quarantine or blockade would immediately threaten shipping, insurance, semiconductor supply chains, electronics, automobiles, communications equipment, and virtually every modern industry dependent upon advanced chips. The later CSIS survey found most American and Taiwanese experts did not believe Taiwan could withstand a Chinese blockade for longer than three months without substantial U.S. intervention. Washington would then face the decision nobody wants to discuss honestly: accept China’s blockade or attempt to break it militarily and risk direct war between two nuclear powers.

Taiwan is also the world’s semiconductor pressure point. The island’s importance to advanced chip manufacturing means a serious blockade would not remain a regional event. Factories thousands of miles away could discover that a conflict they thought had nothing to do with them suddenly prevents them from obtaining critical components. Markets would begin repricing the risk immediately, shipping premiums would explode, companies would scramble for inventory, and governments would discover once again how fragile global supply chains have become. This is why capital will react long before politicians formally declare that a war has begun.

What I find particularly revealing in the later CSIS survey is the difference between American confidence and Taiwanese confidence in Washington. An astonishing 96% of American experts were completely or moderately confident that the United States would intervene militarily if China invaded Taiwan during the following five years. Taiwanese experts were less confident in American intervention and considerably less confident that U.S. allies would join the fight. It is always easier for people thousands of miles away to be certain about somebody else’s war.

This is precisely why Taiwan remains one of the critical geopolitical pressure points as we move toward 2029. The danger is not simply that China arbitrarily decides to invade. The greater danger is escalation, miscalculation, political promises that cannot be withdrawn, and Western policymakers convincing themselves that every additional provocation somehow produces deterrence. China has made its position on formal independence perfectly clear, and even the experts inside the Western foreign-policy establishment overwhelmingly acknowledge that Beijing would react with force if that line were crossed.

If Taiwan declares formal independence, 77% of the experts surveyed believed China would invade within six months. That is not a statistic policymakers should treat as another war-game scenario. It is a warning about what happens when politicians deliberately remove the ambiguity that has helped keep the peace.

Categories:War

Wholesale Inflation Is Cooling, But Do Not Confuse That With Deflation


Posted Originally on Aug 14, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Eye on Inflation – GIS Reports

Wholesale prices were unchanged in July, coming in below expectations for a 0.2% increase. The Producer Price Index was flat after a revised 0.1% decline in June, while the annual rate fell sharply to 4.7% from 5.5%. Wholesale prices are still 4.7% higher than a year ago, and beneath that flat headline number there are several very different forces moving in opposite directions.

The primary reason July looked so tame was goods, and particularly energy. Final-demand goods prices declined 0.7%, with energy falling 3.1% and food dropping 0.9%. This follows the enormous energy shock earlier this year when final-demand goods surged 2.8% in May, the largest monthly increase since that series began in 2009. Energy jumped 10.7% that month and gasoline alone surged 23.4%. You cannot look at the subsequent decline and pretend the original price increase never occurred. Energy exploded, retreated from that spike, and therefore dragged July’s monthly PPI downward.

This is precisely why I would be extremely cautious about declaring victory over inflation. July PPI probably did not fully capture the late-July increase in oil prices. Energy works its way through virtually everything because businesses do not simply purchase gasoline. They pay for diesel, electricity, transportation, plastics, fertilizer, chemicals, refrigeration, manufacturing, shipping, and eventually higher insurance costs when geopolitical tensions threaten transportation routes. A temporary decline in petroleum can make an inflation report look beautiful for a month, but if energy reverses, those costs begin working their way through the entire production chain again.

Services tell a very different story from goods. Final-demand services increased 0.2% in July, and portfolio-management fees surged 6.5%. Freight transportation costs declined 1.8%, providing some relief, but the underlying service economy remains under pressure.

Producer prices excluding food and energy increased 0.2% in July and remained 4.2% higher than one year ago. More importantly, the measure excluding food, energy, and trade services increased 0.4% for the month and 4.7% annually. That tells us that once you strip away the volatile decline in energy and some of the distortions from trade margins, underlying producer inflation is hardly sitting at the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

This is the problem with reducing inflation to a single number. A farmer looks at fertilizer, diesel, machinery, interest rates, seed, labor, and transportation. A restaurant owner looks at food, electricity, rent, wages, insurance, and financing. A manufacturer looks at commodities, energy, components, shipping, tariffs, and borrowing costs. Each business experiences a completely different inflation rate, and eventually those costs either have to be absorbed through lower profit margins or passed along to consumers.

CPI rose only 0.1% in July and 3.4% annually, while core CPI came in at 2.5%. Now PPI has also surprised to the downside, and naturally everyone will begin demanding that the Federal Reserve ease. Reuters reports that the federal funds rate remains at 3.50% to 3.75%, while the latest inflation and labor data strengthen the argument for leaving rates unchanged at the September meeting rather than tightening further. Estimates derived from the latest inflation data put July core PCE at approximately 0.2% for the month and 3.3% annually.

There is also a tremendous difference between producer inflation and consumer inflation because companies do not pass costs through immediately. Businesses initially absorb higher expenses by reducing margins, changing suppliers, shrinking products, eliminating employees, automating operations, or postponing investment. Only when those measures become insufficient do they raise prices aggressively. PPI therefore gives us a look into the pipeline, but it does not tell us exactly when or how much of that pressure ultimately reaches the consumer.

This is particularly important now because American businesses are already dealing with a consumer who is stretched thin. Grocery spending is slowing, small-business bankruptcies are rising, foreclosures are increasing, credit card balances remain enormous, and households are becoming increasingly price-sensitive. Companies may therefore have less ability to pass higher costs onto customers even when their own expenses increase. That does not necessarily eliminate inflation. It can instead destroy margins and eventually businesses, which is an entirely different economic problem.

The July report is certainly better than another 2.8% explosion in goods prices like we saw in May, but it does not demonstrate that inflation has been defeated. Goods fell because energy and food provided substantial relief while services continued higher and the broad core measure excluding food, energy, and trade services rose 0.4%. The annual PPI remains 4.7%, and the late-July oil increase may not yet be fully reflected in these numbers. That is hardly an environment where anyone should assume prices are about to return to what Americans remember before the inflationary surge.

What we are seeing is inflation moving through different layers of the economy at different speeds. Energy can plunge one month and surge the next, commodities respond to war and supply, services remain sticky, businesses absorb costs until their margins break, and consumers finally see whatever remains at the end of that chain. July provided relief at the wholesale level, but the underlying numbers remain far too elevated to declare that this cycle is finished.

The Midterms 2026 & Beyond into 2036


Posted Originally on Aug 13, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

2026 Midterms

Many requests have been pouring in for an updated forecast for the 2026 Midterm Elections and beyond. We have put this report together with the computer forecast arrays out to 2036. This report dives into the Great Divide politically and this is part of the process as we move into 2032 when we get to redesign government and enjoy perhaps a Direct Democracy and what that will mean. For the first time, we dive into the rigging of the 2020 election. Trump was looking in all the WRONG places. This was an international conspiracy that was even linked to COVID to lock people down leading to a massive surge in mail-in ballots all intentional.

This offers a view beyond 2032 at least for major decisions like war bringing an end to this UNELECTED usurpation of foreign policy all for the vengeance of these Neocons who want perpetual conflict for vengeance or profit. They love to stay safe in their bunkers while sending other people’s children to death. Robert McNamara apologized before he died for the Vietnam War saying Russia was not involved, it was just a civil war. They have lied about every war or were just too biased to see the truth like WMD in Iraq didn’t exit.

Hopefully, 2032 will bring into focus the light at the end of the tunnel. These Neocons have  been the problem since Vietnam, which was the subject of the song:

Creedence Clearwater Revival – Fortunate Son

Special Report – $39.95

2026 Midterms Index
2026 Midterms banner