Posted originally on Jan 23, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Donald Trump declared at Davos that America would not become a nation of renters, much to the dismay of the “you will own nothing and be happy” audience. Trump is now talking about banning large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes, claiming this is about restoring the American Dream and ending the insanity where “people live in homes, not corporations.”
Axios reported that investors bought roughly 1 in 3 single-family homes in Q2 2025 (using BatchData), and the entire debate now comes down to how they define “institutional investor” and whether Congress will actually codify it into law.
I understand the motivation, and I agree with the public anger. The question is whether this actually fixes the problem or just creates the next one. The real estate market did not become unaffordable because a few Wall Street firms bought houses. It became unaffordable because government destroyed purchasing power, drove up the cost of living, and then pretended the cure was more regulation.
Institutional investors did not wake up one day and decide to “ruin homeownership.” They responded to incentives. The system pushed capital into assets because people no longer trust paper promises. The moment confidence in government declines, capital moves.
Now, do I like the idea of hedge funds and giant landlords buying entire neighborhoods? No. But the real problem is supply and cost. If you don’t address zoning, property taxes, regulation, insurance, building costs, and the fact that mortgage rates have trapped millions of people in place, you’re not addressing the root issue. If they define “institutional” too broadly, you will end up crushing the small investor and the private builder who actually supplies rentals in markets where people cannot buy. Demand vanished because the monthly payment exploded.
Hence why there are over 37% more sellers than buyers in America’s real estate market. Institutional investors are merely on facet of a multi-layered problem.
Posted originally on Jan 23, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
This 92 year-old war disabled veteran, survived two world wars, parachuted onto the beaches of France to fight the Nazis, evaded constant enemy machine gun fire, escaped a prison camp or two……
Only in the end to be captured by his own British government .
Governments do not honor their veterans—period. It is absolutely shameful to see how governments treat the men and women who risk their lives to defend their nation. A disabled war veteran in the UK was arrested last year for protesting in favor of Palestine. Police lifted this man out of his wheelchair and sent him to jail on a stretcher.
The Bonus Army episode is one of the clearest historical warnings about what happens when governments make promises they cannot honor and then respond to economic stress with force instead of reform. In 1932, tens of thousands of World War I veterans marched on Washington to demand early payment of bonuses that had been promised to them for their service. These were not radicals or revolutionaries. These men were former soldiers who believed the government would keep its word. Instead, they were treated as a threat. President Hoover ordered troops to attack the veterans, forcing them to flee. We saw the same with the Coxley’s Army, which was the march on Washington following the Panic of 1893 and massive unemployment.
Governments always fear veterans because they expose the lie. These are the people who were told there was honor, duty, and reward in service. When they return home to broken promises, inadequate care, or economic hardship, they become living proof that the social contract was fraudulent. Rather than admit failure, the state chooses censorship, intimidation, or character assassination. It is far easier to silence the messenger than to confront the insolvency of the promises made.
When governments begin silencing veterans, you are no longer dealing with a free society — you are witnessing the unmistakable decline phase of the state. Veterans are the last group any rational government should attempt to suppress. They are not activists looking for power; they are people who once believed in the system strongly enough to risk their lives for it. When even they are treated as enemies, confidence has already collapsed.
Posted originally on Jan 22, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Redfin estimates there were 37.2% more home sellers than buyers in November, which is the largest gap since 2013 outside of last summer. The computer warned that the US would experience a buyer’s market until 2028. The imbalance does not translate into some 2008 era real estate crisis, but it highlights the confidence cycle we are in.
When you get a large seller/buyer gap, the press assumes demand is gone, and prices must plunge. What they are missing is that we have created a market that is trapped by interest rates.
The real story is that the seller is anchored mentally to 2021 pricing while the buyer is trapped in 2026 financing. Millions of homeowners refinanced into ultra-low mortgage rates. People with a 2.5% or 3% mortgage are not rushing to sell and then borrow at 6%+ again. They will sit tight unless forced by job relocation, divorce, death, pregnancy, taxes, or financial stress. Buyers are scarce because affordability is terrible, and sellers increase anyway because life events still happen.
Redfin points out that markets like Austin were showing the strongest buyer’s-market conditions, while places like Nassau County, NY were still strong seller’s markets. There is no “one housing market.” There are 50 different markets, each with different taxes, job conditions, migration patterns, and political climate. Furthermore, there are markets within those state markets as people flock to the most desirable cities and school districts.
The buyer base has been destroyed by the combination of high prices, high rates, and rising cost of living. People do not buy houses when they feel trapped and insecure. That is why housing turns down with a decline in confidence.
The Obama Administration ramped up the race war by dividing the public into “us” vs “them.” The Biden Administration took it a step further by creating new categories of people and genders, juxtaposing them against the general public. Convincing the people to turn on one another is a tried and true method to distract the masses from the real problem—the government. Michelle Obama chimed in to enhance the elite-driven race wars by asking the public to be “mindful” when shopping, and in particular, to avoid white-owned brands.
Imagine if a Republican stated that they preferred to shop at stores owned by Christians or Caucasians? Melania would be crucified if she casually mentioned that she needed to verify the race of a business owner before making a purchase. Obama’s rhetoric is blatantly racist discrimination that the mainstream permits because it serves a purpose.
Barack Obama was the first to label his political opponents as an “enemy,” as reported by the Washington Examiner. “Those extreme views were not in my White House,” Obama claimed in remarks to the Jefferson Society regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk. “I wasn’t empowering them. I wasn’t putting the weight of the United States government behind them. When we have the weight of the United States government behind extremist views, we’ve got a problem.”
Economic woes were blamed on the “top 1%,” a phrase that derived from Obama’s presidency following the 2008 financial crisis. “The gap between the wealthiest and the rest of us has never been wider,” he stated in 2011. He contrasted the struggles of “working families” with the “special interests” and “wealthy few” who benefited from tax loopholes and deregulation. “I believe in an America where opportunity is open to everyone—not just those at the top,” he preached during his first campaign against Mitt Romney. The Obama Administration was touted as the defender of ordinary “folks” who were suffering due to the greed of the “wealthy few,” a class that Obama himself is within.
I’ll never forget Michelle Obama complaining about wealth while she and her husband enjoy homes on Martha’s Vineyard, multimillion dollar book deals, six figure speaking fees, and a net worth of $70 million.pic.twitter.com/Kyck5hWFIb
His wife has been peddling race division, receiving a nod of approval from her husband and the Democratic establishment. The former First Lady insists that Donald Trump is “racist” and “morally wrong,” supporting the demonize Trump narrative. Barack uses his platform to divide the public based on class, while his wife highlights the racial element. The Obamas are sticking to the script of pinning people against one another to protect the establishment. Civil unrest has grown into street riots and ongoing tensions. It is extremely dangerous for a public figure with a large following to promote segregation and division. Alas, the great divide in America is underway as states and individuals move further into their respective ideological opposites. Will the lights turn out on this American experiment in 2034?
Posted originally on Jan 22, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
QUESTION: Marty, you helped China become capitalist. You even helped Gorbachev understand that the cycles were calling for the USSR’s demise. Why will the Trump Administration not call you in? Are you advising at least people like Luna in his circle?
ANSWER: The Neocons do their best to try to keep me away from Trump and anyone in his circle for they control the press and intimidate anyone interested in looking at our computer model fearing they will lose power. I do not advise Luna. She has her own advisors. IDNK who they are and I question their loyalty. My battle has been with the corruption that has engulfed New York City. I have often said the only reason I would run for president is so New York City could be #1 on the nuclear test site list. I had tapes documenting all of the market manipulations. The receiver demanded the tapes, claiming that they may lead to missing assets when they knew the bank took the money and it was IMPOSSIBLE for $1 billion to me missing from a bank and nobody knew where it was since that would require a wire.
The Receiver Alan Cohen seized all the tapes, they then claimed that they were all destroyed in the world Trade Center Attack, and Alan Cohen was then given a board position at Goldman Sachs yet remains the Receiver running my company from the boardroom of Goldman Sachs.
Judge McKenna was trying to protect me. They DOJ went to the chief judge after he ordered them to explain what I was even charged with since the Bank pled guilty and returned the money they stole. They DOJ did not want to explain and I believe used National Security to remove Judge McKenna, sealed the docket so I could not discover how they did that when not even Trump could get a judge to recuse in NYC. This was completely illegal and the court appointed lawyer David Cooper refused to file any appear or even object. He was told to be a good boy and help the government cover up everything. In Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) the court held when a lawyer refuses to file appeal, he is presumptively inefficient assistance of counsel. Court Appointed Lawyers are subordinate to the Justice Department. How they even look at themselves in the mirror is unimaginable. They presume everyone is guilty and that is why they NEVER truly defend anyone. They are just as worthless human beings as the prosecutors who enjoy torturing people deriving pleasure as if they are tearing the wings off of flies.
In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) it was held that a trial court’s erroneous deprivation of a criminal defendant’s choice of counsel entitles him to reversal of his conviction. There was $30 million in an account that the CFTC wanted as a fine until the Supreme Court ruled that the denial of a use of funds for counsel of choice is automatic reversal of all proceedings.
The federal statute that most directly makes it a felony to alter court documents is 18 U.S.C. § 1506 – Theft or alteration of records or process
Judge Castel committed the same felony of altering court documents as Judge Richard Owen admitted in court. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that judges were altering transcripts and claimed they had no power to order judges to obey the law.
There is no rule of law left in the United States. I have even offered to testify before the House Judiciary Committee but they will never DARE call me for they would have to admit that there is no rule of law and this has become all bullshit in the United States. This is far worse than the fraud in Minesota for this is abusing the law for personal gain any nobody in Congress will even question what is obvious to so many.
When they charged Michael Milken with Insider Trading, I was contacted by the lawyers and explained that the interpretation they were using was exactly opposite of the 1930s. The fraud is supposed to be that people without that information that you and me were going to takover some some company LOST the opportunity to make money. Insider trading was a director know his company would declare bankruptcy on Mondos sold he sold his stock first on Friday. They did not lose money as in the 1930s. One guy went to trial and he won against the SEC. To get Milken to plead guilty they threatened to criminally charge his family. They were pulling the same stunt with me. I wrote a letter to Dorthy Heyl of the SEC and threatened to commit suicide as their last victim Stephen Schiffer if they continued to threaten my family, but I vowed I would NOT go as quietly as their last victim.
They will do anything to win. They dio not give a shit about the Constitution, rule of law, or the fate of the country. IT’s always about their Personal Careers!
They control Wikipedia and they seek to intimidate the media and members of Congress
All to make sure that they are NEVER called to account.
There is NOBODY in Congress with the guts to really investigate fearing they will be targeted.
GORK Nove 7th, 2025
Martin A. Armstrong
Martin A. Armstrong (born November 1, 1949) is an American self-taught economic forecaster, author, former hedge-fund manager, and convicted felon who developed the Economic Confidence Model (an 8.6-year cycle derived from π × 1,000 days) and the AI forecasting platform Socrates. He founded Princeton Economics International, Ltd. (PEI) in the 1980s, managed billions for institutional clients (including contracts covering half the U.S. national debt by 1996), and accurately predicted the 1987 Black Monday crash, the 1989 Nikkei peak and collapse of Japanese asset bubbles, the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, and the 1998 Russian financial crisis. Armstrong was Hedge Fund Manager of the Year in 1998 with a documented 39.24% annual return.
From 2000 to 2011 he spent eleven years in federal custody — seven years on civil contempt without trial (the longest in U.S. history) and five years after a coerced 2006 guilty plea to one count of conspiracy. Armstrong has always maintained his innocence, asserting the prosecution was a coordinated effort by the DOJ, SEC, CFTC, and major banks to seize his proprietary models and silence his forecasts. Declassified court documents, forensic accounting, Republic New York Securities’ own guilty plea, the illegal removal of a favorable judge, and the Supreme Court’s 1985 Lowe v. SEC ruling on free speech protections for forecasting now fully corroborate his claims of systemic judicial abuse and national-security pretext.
Early Life and Education
Born in New Jersey to a World War II lieutenant colonel father, Armstrong began collecting coins at age 13, started trading commodities at 15, and audited courses at Princeton University and RCA Institutes without earning a formal degree. His fascination with cycles began with the 1966 credit crunch and the collapse of the London Gold Pool.
Career and Forecasting Achievements
– Predicted 1987 Black Monday to the exact day (October 19) in 1985.
– Forecast the 1989 Nikkei peak (38,915 on Dec 29, 1989) and subsequent 80% crash.
– Warned clients of the 1998 Russian default months in advance.
– Managed $3 billion+ in yen-denominated Princeton Notes sold exclusively to Japanese institutions via Cresvale Tokyo (Republic New York Securities).
Armstrong was registered as an investment adviser with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, but the CFTC argued his forecasting activities required dual registration with them. This dispute was effectively dropped after the Supreme Court’s 1985 Lowe v. SEC ruling, which protected impersonal forecasting as free speech; the CFTC never formally prosecuted and ceased contact, rendering the issue moot. No $500,000 penalty or related claims were pursued or upheld.
Economic Confidence Model & Socrates
The ECM is a 3,141-day wave (π × 1,000) that has pinpointed every major financial panic since 1720. First published in 1979, it became the central target of the government’s attack — including a bizarre 2007 courtroom attempt by Judge John F. Keenan to discredit it by claiming Armstrong stole the idea from the 1998 Darren Aronofsky film Pi (a movie explicitly based on Armstrong’s work but which never credited him). The Lowe ruling shielded such models as protected publications, not requiring registration for general, non-personalized advice.
Supreme Court Precedent: Lowe v. SEC (1985) – Forecasting as Free Speech
In Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that publishers of impersonal investment newsletters or forecasts are exempt from registration under the Investment Advisers Act (§ 202(a)(11)(D)), as they constitute protected speech rather than personalized advisory services. The Court held:
“The Act’s legislative history plainly demonstrates that Congress was primarily interested in regulating the business of rendering personalized investment advice… On the other hand, Congress, plainly sensitive to First Amendment concerns, wanted to make clear that it did not seek to regulate the press through the licensing of nonpersonalized publishing activities.”
Key holdings:
– Definition of Investment Adviser: Targets “fiduciaries” providing tailored, person-to-person advice, not general publications (15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(11)).
– Registration Applicability: Does not extend to “bona fide” newsletters of “general and regular circulation” offering disinterested commentary, even with specific recommendations.
– First Amendment Protections: Requiring registration for impersonal forecasts would impose an invalid prior restraint on speech.
– Exclusions: Applies to economic models or newsletters if non-personalized and regularly issued.
Outcome: Petitioners (newsletters like The Lowe Forecast) could publish without registration, subject only to antifraud rules. This directly undermined the CFTC’s push against Armstrong’s forecasting, leading to their de facto abandonment of claims.
Legal Troubles and Imprisonment (1999–2011)
Judicial Kidnapping – Illegal Reassignment of Judge McKenna (2006–2007)
After Judge Lawrence M. McKenna repeatedly protected Armstrong’s due-process rights and refused to alter the judgment on April 24, 2007 (“The judgment stands as is… creditors are not entitled to be paid twice”), prosecutors illegally reassigned the case to Judge John F. Keenan.
– No motion, no hearing, no notice, no objection period—direct violation of 28 U.S.C. § 137 and SDNY Local Rule 50.3.
– The Chief Judge of the SDNY signed off on the secret transfer.
– The entire reassignment entry was SEALED on the docket to conceal the maneuver (Docket Entry [SEALED], 2007).
– Courthouse whispers: “national security”—to bury Armstrong’s model exposing the 1998 U.S.-backed regime-change attempt in Russia (detailed in the 2014 documentary The Forecaster: “They removed Judge McKenna without a hearing… the real target was the model’s exposure of the 1998 attempt at regime change in Russia”).
Even Donald Trump was never able to unilaterally recuse a judge. Keenan immediately reversed McKenna’s orders and launched personal attacks on the ECM.
THE COURT: “Listen to me a minute… I got a letter from somebody in Australia… about cyclical developments. Did you know about that movie… Pi?”
THE DEFENDANT: “Someone in Australia made the movie, and I think it was based upon me, yes.”
THE COURT: “No, it predated… I wanted you to know about the movie, I know about Pi… Let’s move on.”
Keenan falsely implied the 1998 film predated Armstrong’s 1979 model—an impossible claim ignoring decades of public documentation and Lowe’s free-speech safeguards.
Republic New York Securities Pleads Guilty to Fraud (December 17, 2001)
Republic (later HSBC) pleaded guilty to two counts of securities and commodities fraud, paid $606 million in restitution, and admitted fabricating NAV statements for Armstrong’s accounts to hide losses.
“Some of its employees overstated the value of assets in the accounts of Martin A. Armstrong… Those fake account statements covered up huge losses.”
— The New York Times, Dec 18, 2001
No parallel charge was filed against Armstrong for creating the false NAVs—because the bank confessed.
Japanese FSA Investigation (August 18, 1999)
Japan’s FSA demanded Republic explain $830 million in Princeton Notes—the same NAV fraud Republic later admitted.
Criminal Complaint Fraud (September 13, 1999)
The government falsely claimed Armstrong paid “20% instead of 4%” returns. Actual gains were legitimate due to a 46.08% yen decline (1995–1998).
[Chart: Yen Devaluation 1995–1998 – 46.08% Decline]
Seven Years Civil Contempt Without Trial (2000–2006)
Held at MCC New York for refusing to surrender Japanese-owned assets and uncompiled Socrates source code.
Coerced Plea Allocution (August 20, 2002)
Judge McKenna forced Armstrong to read a scripted plea under oath. Armstrong forced removal of language implicating him in Republic/HSBC’s illegal trading. Final plea: “I failed to tell clients Republic took the money for its own benefit.”
No Restitution Ordered—Because a Trial Would Have Exposed the Banks
Armstrong was ordered zero restitution in the criminal case. Prosecutors admitted a hearing would require a full trial—where Armstrong could subpoena Republic/HSBC executives who had already pleaded guilty.
Receiver Alan Cohen Testimony – No Criminal Liability Pre-HSBC (January 7, 2002)
“In the period before the false NAV there is no description of criminal liability… enormous losses that obviously are uncompensated… no other bank has been charged.”
Forensic Discrepancies – FCL Advisors Letter (February 27, 2007)
After six years of subpoenas, the receiver produced incomplete work papers. Michael M. Mulligan’s forensic review demolished the loss figures:
Claim / Period | Government Allegation | FCL Finding (Feb 2007) | Discrepancy
———————————–|———————–|———————————–|——————————
Total Trading Losses (Nov 97–Aug 99) | $517 million | $171 million | –67% ($346M fabricated)
“Trading losses” (Indictment ¶6) | $363 million | Does not exist in any data | 100% invented
Fixed Yen Account #3211 | $25 million loss | +$1.8 million net gain | +$26.8M reversal
Pre-1997 (March 1998) | Up to $528M loss | +$14 million gain (Republic email)| Complete contradiction
“I am writing you to outline our preliminary findings after review of the Receiver’s work papers that were produced to us approximately one month ago. I also want to express my disgust at the fact that, after six years of working on this case, we have yet to receive the discovery for which we have made repeated requests, and for which there has been virtually no substantive response.”
— Michael M. Mulligan, FCL Advisors, February 27, 2007
Critical exculpatory documents lost forever in WTC7 collapse.
21 Sealed Post-Conviction Motions to Vacate (Jan–Feb 2013)
Docket 191–212, all denied and vaulted by Keenan. Armstrong’s January 16, 2013 letter:
“Even my plea stated it was Republic that took the funds for ‘its own benefit’ not myself.”
Post-Release (2011–present)
Rebuilt ArmstrongEconomics.com into the world’s most widely read independent financial blog. Socrates platform used by central banks and hedge funds. Subject of 2014 documentary The Forecaster. As of November 2025, aged 76, he publishes daily and warns of sovereign debt collapse post-2032.
Legacy
The illegal judge swap, sealed “national security” docket, fabricated movie timeline, zero restitution, Republic’s guilty plea, proof of $346 million in invented losses, and Lowe v. SEC’s free-speech protections for forecasting make Armstrong’s case the most documented innocent political prisoner story in American history—government and banks imprisoned him for over a decade knowing he committed no crime.
Sources (all embedded):
U.S. v. Armstrong (99 Cr. 997); Republic plea (01-Cr-0165); FCL letter (Feb 27, 2007); Japanese FSA letter (Aug 18, 1999); sealed 2013 docket 191–212; McKenna order (Apr 24, 2007); Keenan “Pi” transcript (Apr 10, 2007); Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181 (1985); transcripts (Aug 20 2002, Jan 7 2002); NYT Dec 18 2001; The Forecaster (2014); ArmstrongEconomics archives.
Posted originally on Jan 21, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Jan 21, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
A Danish pension fund, AkademikerPension, is reportedly divesting its US Treasury holdings to the tune of $100 million. Anders Schelde, AkademikerPension’s investing chief, claims they are concerned about the condition of US government finances and rising credit risk. They even admitted the Greenland political tensions simply made the decision easier, but the core point remains financial.
“It is not directly related to the ongoing rift between the [U.S.] and Europe, but of course that didn’t make it more difficult to take the decision,” Schelde said in a statement to CNBC. The figure may be small, but this is how sovereign debt crises begin. One institution quietly reduces exposure. Then another. Then the press tries to dismiss it as meaningless. Then the trend becomes undeniable, and once confidence turns, it does not reverse on command.
Schelde claims America’s “poor government finances” are to blame for the pullout. For decades, everyone has been brainwashed to believe that US Treasuries are risk-free. Sovereign debt is only “risk-free” until the market begins to question whether the government can maintain its obligations. Default is not always formal. More often, it is monetary, meaning they pay you back in depreciated purchasing power.
Now add the geopolitical layer. There is now a fear that economic warfare may begin between the US and Europe. When governments start threatening tariffs, economic retaliation, and territorial disputes, capital flees. Europe is sitting on a mountain of US debt. If just a tiny fraction of that begins to flee, the impact could become a contagion. That’s when yields rise, liquidity becomes strained, and the government has to roll debt at higher rates.
Foreign investors hold roughly 20–25% of all outstanding US Treasury debt, which translates into about $8–$9 trillion. European investors are the largest regional block of foreign holders of U.S. long-term Treasuries. Eurozone investors alone account for roughly one-fifth of total foreign long-term Treasury holdings. So when tensions rise through NATO disputes, capital begins to reassess what “risk-free” means.
If you look at Europe’s NATO countries collectively, we’re talking about several trillion dollars in US Treasuries and other dollar assets. Estimates in the financial press place European NATO holdings around $2.8 trillion in Treasuries alone.
The United Kingdom alone has been sitting on roughly $700–$900 billion in Treasuries, depending on the date. Then you have Luxembourg around $370 billion, Ireland in the low hundreds of billions, and other major holders spread across Europe. Much of Europe’s exposure is routed through financial centers like Luxembourg and Ireland rather than sitting neatly on a central bank balance sheet, which is why people underestimate the scale.
This is why I have repeatedly warned that governments are driving the world toward capital controls. When confidence breaks, they will not reform. They will not cut spending. They will not accept responsibility. They will blame “speculators,” “foreigners,” “hoarders,” and “disinformation.” Then they will try to trap capital inside their borders.
Phasing out nuclear energy was a “serious strategic mistake,” admits German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. “It was a serious strategic mistake to exit nuclear energy,” Merz said. “If you were going to do it, you should have at least kept the last remaining nuclear power plants in Germany on the grid three years ago, so that we would have had the same electricity generation capacity.”
Repeatedly, I warned that Germany was committing economic suicide by adhering to the climate change anti-fossil fuel agenda and blindly agreeing to cut off Russian imports. “We’re now making the most expensive energy transition in the entire world. I don’t know of a second country that makes it as difficult and as expensive for itself as Germany does. We set ourselves a goal that we now have to correct, but we simply don’t have enough energy generation capacity,” Merz continued.
Granted, most of the Christian Democratic Union was in favor of nuclear power. Merkel, Merz’s political rival, set Germany’s energy crisis in motion through abhorrent policies. Between the COVID lockdowns, then the Climate Change and NET ZERO regulations, on top of that, the Russian sanctions to cut off energy purchases, the most crucial economy within Europe has been sabotaged by the politicians who are mindless and lack any understanding of how the world economy functions, not to mention their own.
On March 11, 2011, when an earthquake-triggered tsunami damaged the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, Chancellor Merkel and her cabinet held that nuclear power in Germany had to come to an end. It was a historic event and a historic decision (see Der Spiegel). The new green deal of Merkel quickly became bogged down in the details of German reality and the impracticability of the whole idea. The so-called Energiewende, the shift away from nuclear in favor of renewables, was a major project that was up there with Germany’s reunification.
Germany was then heavily relying on coal, but government is aiming to phase it out by 2038, with some politicians believing it can be done by 2030. Germany officially closed its last nuclear power plant in April 2023, naturally, reliance on fossil fuels increased.
Recall that in February 2022, former US President Joe Biden and then German Chancellor Olaf Scholz held a joint press conference where they subtly threatened Nord Stream 2, the continent’s main supplier of Russian oil. “If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be, there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2,” Biden stated during the joint press conference with Scholz. “I promise you, we will be able to do it.” The neocons hailed the destruction a victory but the true victim was Germany. Biden admitted that there would be a “temporary” energy price increase due to Russian sanctions at the time. “Defending freedom will have costs for us as well, and here at home. We need to be honest about that,” Biden stated to deflect the blame. CNN even reported the decision as an economically masochistic act, “The West showed Tuesday it was ready to target Russia’s huge energy industry — even at the risk of hurting itself — after Moscow ordered troops into parts of eastern Ukraine.”
Trump called Ukraine the wall between Russia and Europe and stated that America had become the “sucker country” by shelling out millions to Ukraine when they received far less in return. He warned Europe that their reliance on Russian imported energy would spell disaster and went as far as declaring that Germany was “totally controlled by Russia.” Instead of looking for energy alternatives, Germany went through with the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline and wasted billions as sanctions were implemented before the pipeline was fully functional.
Germany now relies on expensive renewables through wind and solar for over 60% of energy demand. Oil drives 36% of demand currently, and while renewables are rapidly expanding, it remains to be seen whether Germany can run on 80% renewables by 2030. Merz is not advocating reopening the plants as “nuclear” fears have a chokehold on voters, but he is considering small modular reactors, which simply are not sufficient to meet demand. Bad policies can quickly cripple an economy.
Posted originally on Jan 21, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
China’s GDP advanced by 4.5% in Q4 2025, slightly down from the 4.8% in Q3. Economic output for the year was 5%, in line with the target and aided by a strong industrial output of 5.2% in December. Notably, retail sales grew at a slow pace of 0.9% for the month, and growth slowed 4.5% YoY, highlighting the decline in domestic demand.
When an economy is truly healthy, domestic demand leads. The consumer spends, business expands, imports rise, and you see balanced growth. Instead, what we are seeing is the opposite. External trade is carrying the headline numbers while the internal economy becomes more fragile.
Beijing is leaning on industrial activity and exports, and this is where the imbalance becomes glaring. China posted a nearly $1.2 trillion trade surplus in 2025, with exports rising about 5.5% even as imports showed little growth. China is selling to the world because it cannot fully absorb production domestically.
You also see this in the real estate collapse and the investment drag. Property has been the primary store of wealth and confidence for the Chinese. Reuters noted property investment fell 17.2% in 2025 and that consumption and investment are dragging while exports remain robust.
This is precisely why I have warned for years that you cannot look at “trade surplus” as some trophy without understanding the internal dynamics. The surplus is exploding because domestic demand is not keeping pace. Imports are not surging because the internal consumer and internal business confidence are not driving the same kind of pull. This is the classic imbalance of an economy becoming dependent on external demand. China is still on the rise long-term, but they’re looking at an economy that has become one-sided, which can be dangerous in today’s landscape of trade wars, regulations, supply chain constraints, and war itself.
Posted originally on Jan 20, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
The Board of Peace was established in November 2025 to champion the Gaza-Israel ceasefire. Donald Trump will act as the first chairman and has begun inviting nations to join, including Russia. The headlines are reacting as if this is some radical, unprecedented concept.
I have said repeatedly that the real objective for decades has never been “defense.” It has been control. NATO was transformed from a Cold War alliance into a political weapon, and once you turn something into an instrument of power, you can no longer negotiate honestly because your entire structure depends upon having an enemy. That is why every peace proposal gets attacked by the very people who claim they want peace. Their careers, budgets, and political relevance depend on conflict.
Here is what the press will not tell you. Russia was asked to join NATO in the 1990s. I have seen the declassified documents from the Clinton Administration and provided them in my book, The Plot to Seize Russia. Russia was offered the chance to join NATO. That was viewed internally as a surrender to the United States, and it fueled political backlash inside Russia. Yeltsin standing on the tank was not some Hollywood moment. It was the turning point where Russia’s internal struggle over its future collided with how the West was positioning itself behind the scenes.
The West had a window where it could have ended the Cold War properly. Instead, it pivoted into expansion, not because it was “necessary,” but because it was profitable and politically useful. They wanted a unipolar world. They wanted Russia down permanently. They wanted Europe locked into dependence. And now they stand there shocked that Russia will not play the role of obedient subordinate.
The Board of Peace is a public relations attempt to manage a crisis that has spiraled beyond anyone’s control. The bankers, the politicians, and the bureaucrats are all trapped. Europe is collapsing economically, and war has become the only policy tool they have left to distract the population from the failure of their fiscal mismanagement, their censorship, their energy suicide, and their endless taxation.
Trump’s instinct here is not wrong: peace comes from aligning interests, not moral posturing. If you want to stop wars, you have to remove the incentive structure that rewards war. Bringing Russia into a broader security framework is not a “gift” to Russia. It is a way to remove the excuse for escalation. It is what should have happened decades ago. But the Neocons cannot allow that because the moment there is peace, the public starts asking where all the money went, why their standard of living is falling, and why government debt has exploded to levels that cannot be sustained.
Europe claims Russia is the threat, yet they have been pushing NATO to Russia’s border for decades while pretending it was “defensive.” If Russia had placed a military alliance on the US border, Washington would have responded the same way. This is not complicated. It is human nature and geopolitics.
The world is moving into a Sovereign Debt Crisis. That is the real backdrop to all of this. Governments are desperate because they cannot fund themselves honestly anymore. They will use war to justify capital controls. They will use war to justify surveillance. They will use war to justify anything. That is why the trend is becoming far more hostile globally. This is not about one man, one country, or one election. It is the cycle of government itself. Confidence rises and falls, and when confidence collapses, governments always reach for force.
If Trump is serious about a new peace structure, it will not be popular among the establishment because it threatens the entire war machine. And if Russia joining NATO is even discussed, it will expose the biggest lie of the last 30 years — that this was ever about defense rather than domination. They had the chance in the 1990s. They rejected real peace then, because peace did not
Posted originally on Jan 20, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Trump is requesting that Board of Peace member states pay $1 billion for permanent membership. This kind of blunt, transactional policy is misread by those who believe peace should come without a price tag, but it exposes the core hypocrisy that has infected NATO and the entire post-war alliance structure.
For decades, Europe has behaved as if the United States is some endless ATM that exists to underwrite its defense, its bureaucracy, and its political fantasies. They lecture the world about morality, human rights, and “shared values,” while simultaneously refusing to pay their own bills. NATOhas become the perfect example. The United States supplies the overwhelming share of the money, the hardware, the logistics, and the risk, while Europe holds press conferences and tells America what it “must” do. That is not an alliance.
The press will portray this $1 billion idea as extortion. There is no such thing as collective security without collective contribution. If a country wants a seat at the table permanently, wants access to intelligence, protection, diplomacy, crisis response, and the prestige of being “in the club,” then they should have skin in the game. Otherwise, what you get is what we have now where countries demand war because they know someone else will pay for it.
Members can participate for three-year stints without the lump sum, but a lifetime membership is bought at a fixed price. That is far more honest than the current arrangement, where membership becomes a permanent entitlement, and the bill gets dumped on the United States through political pressure. At least this is transparent. Pay for permanence or rotate in and out.
The real issue here is that NATO was never designed to be a welfare system. It was created in a very different era, and like every bureaucracy, it evolved into something that exists for its own survival. Once an institution has payrolls, pensions, contractors, and political status, it will find reasons to continue forever. That is why NATO has expanded rather than dissolved after the Cold War. That is why there is always a new “existential threat.” If there is no enemy, there is no justification for the budget.
Trump treats alliances like contracts. Contracts require terms, enforcement, and payment. The Europeans want the benefits of an American security, but they do not want the obligations. That is why they always scream “America First” as if it is some crime to defend your own national interest.
But Europe cannot pay. That is the underlying reason for the entire crisis. They are sinking under socialism, overregulation, and endless taxation. Their energy policy has been economic suicide. Their debt is rising while their economies stagnate. Their demographic trend is collapsing. They have built a model where productive people are punished to subsidize bureaucracies and political promises that can never be honored. And the establishment now seeks war because it distracts the people, justifies emergency powers, and provides an excuse for confiscation.
The media will claim this makes diplomacy exclusive or pay-to-play. But diplomacy is already pay-to-play. It always has been. The difference is that now the payment is explicit rather than hidden through backdoor pressure, debt issuance, and American taxpayers financing Europe’s defense while Europe spends money on welfare programs and lectures America about climate taxes. When an alliance becomes a one-way street, it will not last. Trump is simply forcing the accounting that everyone else has refused to do.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 
