Can We Really Last until 2032?

Armstrong Economics Blog/ECM Re- Posted Mar 31, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION #1: Martin,

Since Trump was already not guilty of having the affair (to which Stormy Daniels admitted never took place), does that mean that the New York Court has indicted him on the charges of “being blackmailed”?


QUESTION #2: Bill Clinton committed perjury. That was legal grounds to indict him and remove him from office. Nobody wanted to indict Richard Nixon either. I can now see why Socrates is forecasting the collapse of the United States. I just realized that the Declaration of Independence was approved by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, announcing the separation of 13 North American British colonies from Great Britain. What I did not know was it was only a vote of 12 and New York abstained. It seems like New York is at it again. Do you really think we can last until 2032?

ANSWER: What Bragg has done is so undermining to the entire country and he has accepted money from a foreign power seeking to undermine the United States – George Soros. That is treason in my book. He is doing the bidding of a declared enemy against the United States and everything our way of life has stood for.

Yes, the Declaration was designed 1776.506. The United State will exist no more after 2034.50. I am very concerned that the 2024 Presidential election is not going to be fair. By the time we get to 2025.90, this does not look good in the least. It is highly unlikely that we are looking at this lasting as we have known it until 2032. It looks like everything unravels starting in 2027.

Rand Paul Shreds Josh Hawley Over “Restrict Act” While Blocking Unanimous Consent and Reminding About Constitution and “Bills of Attainder”

Posted originally on the CTH on March 30, 2023 | Sundance 

Senator Rand Paul can be both frustrating at times and brutally purposeful at times.  While Paul is a legislative enigma and often a hot mess…. When he is incorrect, he is allowing the DeceptiCons to advance; but when he is correct on the core issue, Senator Paul can be brilliant.

Senator Josh Hawley took to the Senate floor yesterday to present a modified version of the “Restrict Act” as an alternative to the complete government takeover of all internet content – a worthy endeavor.

Hawley tried to strip out the DHS takeover component of the Restrict Act, and just present a bill that bans TikTok.   Senator Rand Paul refused to permit Unanimous Consent for the bill to proceed immediately to a vote.  Senator Paul slows down the Senate deliberations while asking some bigger questions.

The entire Hawley -vs- Paul debate is worth watching (there are two videos, one long – one short).  I sense that Hawley’s intent is good, but Rand Paul is on the right side of the argument.  The American people have never, not once, benefited from any legislative endeavor such as what is being proposed in the effort to ban TikTok.   It’s not about TikTok, it’s about freedom.

The originating debate is below the fold.  This segment is the shorter follow-up that follows Senator Paul blocking unanimous consent.   If you have time, watch both. If you do not have the time, this first one is solid enough to understand the arguments.  Notice how Senator Paul says everything inside this rush to ban is based on “speculation and conjecture.”  This is a point DC doesn’t want people to think about.  Nothing has been proven, only accused.  WATCH:


WASHINGTON, March 29 (Reuters) – U.S. Republican Senator Rand Paul on Wednesday blocked a bid to fast-track a ban of popular Chinese-owned social media app TikTok, which more than 150 million Americans use, citing concerns about free speech and uneven treatment of social media companies.

“I think we should beware of those who use fear to coax Americans to relinquish our liberties,” Paul said on the Senate floor. “Every accusation of data gathering that has been attributed to TikTok could also be attributed to domestic big tech companies.”

Republican Senator Josh Hawley had sought unanimous consent for a TikTok ban bill. “It protects the American people and it sends a message to Communist China that you cannot buy us,” Hawley said, adding the app is spying on Americans.

“If Republicans want to continuously lose elections for a generation they should pass this bill to ban TikTok — a social media app used by 150 million people, primarily young Americans,” Paul said on the Senate floor. “Do we really want to emulate Chinese speech bans?… We’re going to be just like China and ban speech we’re afraid of?”

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said last week he expects the house will take up a bill to address TikTok but the timing is unclear. It is also not clear what a final bill to address TikTok might look like.

A small but growing number of Democrats and Republicans have raised concerns, citing free speech and other issues and have objected to legislation targeting TikTok as overly broad. (read more)

Longer debate…

Why Bank Bailout of Depositos is Critical

Armstrong Economics Blog/Banking Crisis Re-Posted Mar 26, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Hi. I do not understand why you keep advocating over and over how the depositors should be bailed out over 250k. It makes no sense from a moral hazard perspective. It is fact that should they do that, in spite of depositors signing agreements acknowledging that deposits over 250k would not be guaranteed, the Fed will also need to cancel all outstanding debt instruments, whose borrowers also signed an agreement that if they don’t pay they lose the asset. The moral hazard is so severe as to bloody the eyes. Why do you keep endorsing the bailout which will have to be at least initially funded by taxpayers even if they get the money back? The money to shore up bank reserves in exchange for collateral has to come from somewhere. What is the real fear, that people will move deposits direct to T-bills and in so doing, set up funding for a US CBDC? Please address the moral hazard aspect of your position. So far, I’ve heard nothing to defend the immorality of it.

ANSWER: Do not confuse a bank depositor with (1) an investor in a fund, or (2) bank shareholders & Management. A bank depositor is NOT an investor. The $250k is by NO MEANS sufficient for small businesses. They need to keep large amounts on hand for payroll etc. You do business and accept credit cards and they deposit that into your bank account.

Bank depositors are unsophisticated average people. The sophisticated investor moves their, money to a hedge fund or money market fund and fully understands that there is a risk associated with that investment. The bank depositor accepts no risk on any investment the bank makes. It does not give them, a piece of their profits. That goes to shareholders. It is a bailout of the entity and thus the shareholders which presents the moral hazard perspective.

If deposits in excess of $250 are NOT covered, you wipe out small businesses, they cannot pay employees and the ripple effect will be the total destruction of the entire economy. Your house will become worthless for its value will drop to only what someone can pay in cash.

There is a HUGE difference between investing and losing and simply depositing your money in a bank because we are moving to an electronic monetary system that there will be no way for a depositor to even demand money from a bank. Some are restricting wires to $3,000 and limiting the amount of cash one can withdraw. There is also not enough paper currency to facilitate bank withdrawal on a grand scale. Bank robbery will come to an end without cash.

None of that will unfold if a hedge fund fails. We must look deeper into this entire question.

You are Damn Right This is an ‘Us -vs- Them’ Conflict – And There are More of Us Than Them

Posted originally on the CTH on March 25, 2023 | Sundance 

A familiar tactic from within the toxic corporate media system is to push a narrative that anyone who opposes their worldview is just being divisive.  This is said in order to make the victims acquiesce to the demands of the abuser.  In many ways, We The People are in an abusive relationship with government.

If you do not agree with the agenda as it is controlled by a small a powerful self-described elitist class, then we become the problem.

The division is not determined by our definitions, the conniving and corrupt administrators of the system are the ones creating the division we are accused of perpetrating.   However, there is no division in a social context as clear as the division between the working class and the investment class rulers who consider themselves above such arbitrary labels.

When you peel the issues down to their essential core, what you will always find, always find, is the money of the thing.

The created system of control is maintained through economics, and any America-First policy that threatens to close the divide between the ‘haves and have-nots’ is viewed against their interests.  This is the essential core of the opposition we face.

A thriving middle class is a powerful political balance. But a working class struggling for scraps doesn’t have the time to deliver accountability.  This division of wealth is what the Washington DC UniParty exploits.  Despite their pontificating lies to the contrary, all of the DC systems are created to take advantage of the wealth gap.

The social structures which create and maintain society are easier to control with a divided nation.

President Trump and the coalition of MAGA represents a true existential threat to this perpetuated system of division.  The America-First economic agenda created exclusively by Donald Trump is the main problem at the heart of all MAGA opposition.

Quite simply the America First agenda puts *their* money at stake, and collectively that amounts to trillions of dollars in multinational globalist financial control.  The scale of the money behind the MAGA opposition is really the biggest challenge; it is almost unfathomable, and that scale is represented within the size of the war chest they assembled for Ron DeSantis.

The top of this financial pyramid holds a grip on political power that is threatened by the worldview, outlook and economic nationalist policy of Donald Trump.  The top this system will not ‘lose’ with America-First Trump; however, they will gain at a slower rate.  This group will not leave their throne, they only see a slower assembling within their vaults.

The Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street and World Economic Forum crews will follow the America-First policy and invest in America, they will just hate doing it.  They will hate the best-play of slower gains because the returns are not as lucrative, expedient or fraught with the simple indulgences of their custom.

However, underneath that top-tier, there are many layers of vested financial interests at lesser but more generational risk. The Cornwallis crowd will see a much more difficult time advancing their influence and affluence with America-First in place.  For this tier of powdered wigs, a loss for them could really change things.  This reality is why you see demographic polling showing the more affluent the respondent, the less supportive of MAGA their responses.

It’s not a class war, per se’, it is something far deeper within the psyche and outlook of people. The need for control is a reaction to fear.  Losing influence and affluence is the fear behind the division.  If we make the totalitarians a better sandwich, if we reach across the aisle and afford benefit of high-minded doubt, maybe our professional abusers will permit us to keep a little more…  Ultimately, the chase for scraps.

This sensibility, this triggering of selfish fear, is a powerful tool.  This is exactly what is being intentionally and purposefully triggered by those who are professionally political, and they are doing it for their own benefit.  It is not necessarily about creating a class war; it is more akin to controlling the wealth of a nation and then forcing groups to position themselves for what remains.

The ‘us -vs- them‘ scenario is not Republicans -vs- Democrats, it’s We The People, represented by MAGA, -vs- the totalitarian rulers in both parties.

We the people are the heart of America


Interview: The Financial Collapse is GUARANTEED – What Now?

Armstrong Economics Blog/Armstrong in the Media Re-Posted Mar 25, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

Watch the video above or click here to watch my latest interview with Maria Zeee: “The Financial Collapse is GUARANTEED – What Now?”

Credit Suisse Banking Crisis

Armstrong Economics Blog/Banking Crisis Re-Posted Mar 24, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

It is refreshing when you actually find a journalist who is honest and is not being included by the Neocons to put out their propaganda. Her review of Credit Suisse is a worthwhile read. Especially when this is not over yet and the winds of finance are now turning toward questioning Deutsche Bank.

Izabella Kaminska is senior finance editor at POLITICO Europe.

Over the span of 10 days, the global financial system was once again shaken.

The time frame between the collapse of Californian lender Silicon Valley Bank, America’s 16th largest bank, and that of the 167-year-old lender Credit Suisse was approximately just that — 10 days.

And as we witness the fallout, so far it appears contained. Stock markets are up, bank stocks seem stabilized and government bonds are in high demand. Officials reassure ad nauseam that the financial system remains strong and stable.

But the truth is, even if so, what happened in this period of time has changed the financial system forever — and worryingly, most people haven’t even noticed.

Governments and central banks would have you believe that in both cases, private sector solutions were found to resolve the failures. No taxpayer funds were used.

But that is likely not true.

In the United States, growing calls from the country’s top billionaires and hedge fund bosses to guarantee the full extent of customer deposits would, if acted on, deliver a backstop that must be underwritten by public funds. That’s the case even if costs are distributed among whatever healthy banks remain later. The sums involved are eye-watering — by some measures up to $17 trillion of unfunded liabilities.

If the rule is passed — and all indications are that it will be — this would finally make the implicit explicit: that the financial system was never really rescued following the 2008 financial crisis but merely put on life-support. And that has now failed, which means socialization of the losses beckons.

Over in Europe, things are potentially worse. This time, it wasn’t the storming of the Winter Palace Hotel in Gstadt that seized the means of financing but something far more mundane: an untidy bank resolution for Credit Suisse, which relies far too heavily for comfort on Swiss National Bank (SNB) guarantees.

As one former top British central banker told POLITICO, “They could have used bail-in; it would have worked; and banking would become part of a capitalist market economy” — a reference to the loss-absorbing processes regulators came up with after 2008 to ensure bank failures didn’t have to draw on public resources ever again. “The only stable equilibrium is one where bank resolution works, or socialism,” he added.

But the resolution didn’t work. And investors are belatedly realizing this.

Key to this reality is that Credit Suisse was a bank considered to be in good condition and solvent by all regulatory measures. As one bank analyst told POLITICO, going by the assets, you would never have seen the problem coming. Even the SNB and financial markets regulator FINMA said so as recently as last week.

The SVB Private logo is displayed on an ATM outside of a Silicon Valley Bank branch in Santa Monica, California | Patrick Fallon/AFP via Getty images

So were the regulators lying? Or is the accounting somehow fundamentally broken?

What we know for sure is that markets questioned the numbers, and this was evidenced by a run on the bank’s deposits, equity and bonds. And the discrepancy poses a big problem going forward, as it knocks trust in the accounting of all similarly assessed banks, which, thanks to international accounting standards, means pretty much all of them.

Credit Suisse’s sale to domestic rival UBS at cents on the dollar of what regulators claim the underlying assets are worth presents another problem too. If similar assets are lurking in UBS’ own balance sheet — and chances are that is the case, as the assets in question are probably government bonds — they might have to be written down to a similar degree. This is probably why UBS needed the guarantee from the SNB to be doubled to 100 billion Swiss francs to do the deal.

In light of this, Switzerland now faces an even larger issue: If UBS were to become stressed — and it very well could due to this discrepancy — there’s no private sector pathway for resolution left. The country now only has one major bank and, thus, only two possible pathways to deal with a failure — nationalization or acquisition by a foreign buyer with enough cash to keep the valuation of all the consolidated assets at a price that brings everything back to par. And there are few of those in the Western hemisphere.

With a full foreign acquisition off the table due to global discord, this leaves only an unthinkable solution for the home of Swiss private banking — the dawn of a type of finance more commonly seen in communist countries, where banks are directed by the state to allocate funds to activities they prioritize. Combined with a central bank digital currency, this would reduce banks to mere proxies of the state, with uncertain consequences for efficient capital allocation and inflation.

How things would unfold from then on is unclear. The only thing we can be sure of is that nothing in banking, or capitalism, may ever be the same again.

CNN is Dying – Thank God!

Armstrong Economics Blog/Press Re-Posted Mar 24, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Marty, You have a bigger readership than CNN. They dropped to 80,000 primetime. I think you are well beyond 600,000 these days. Maybe put in an offer to buy CNN for $1.49 and hire all new staff and Socrates should get his own show.


REPLY: That is just amazing. I think the price is too high. It should be negative. You fire all the leftist pretend journalists and they will be in court the next day. So there would be a huge amount of liquidation costs. They would have to pay me to take over CNN and even then I think the lights should just be turned out and start fresh with something new. This is just another example of WOKENESS and how it is destroying everything it touches. Quantification, competence, and experience are no longer required for jobs in any company that is WOKE. They are all at the end of the day destined for bankruptcy. In the media, the truth has been sacrificed for fake news to manipulate people’s opinions and steer the country to its doom.

In Germany, being pro-COVID and pro-war, the press is being viewed as part of the whole agenda against the people. There are people now attacking the journalists for hiding the deaths from the vaccines. Many see the press as just evil. Some are still caught up in the vaccines and refuse to admit that there are even side effects. They have lost all sense of honor and independence. It is no longer bout truth, it is just pushing an agenda.

The German mainstream media will also cheer on sending German boys to their death in Ukraine all because that is their directive. They seem to care nothing for society whatsoever and cannot see past the end of their nose. I do not understand how they can look at themselves in the mirror every morning.

If you have any children, tell them to stay away from joining any mainstream media. It will ruin their lives forever for when the dust settles, the people will remember who they were that sent the world to its destruction.

US National Debt – A Different Perspective

Armstrong Economics Blog/Uncategorized Re-Posted Mar 24, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

In 2010, Barron’s wrote a piece on me effectively laughing at my forecast that the share market would rally to new highs. What seems to inevitably unfold is this notion that whatever the event might be in motion, the mere thought of a reversal in trend appears impossible. When the press disagrees with Socrates, I know it will be the press who is wrong. And because they end up being wrong, of course, they cannot print a retraction so they will just pretend you do not exist rather than admit – Sorry, we were wrong. The Dow made that new high above 2007 by February 2013. That was 64 months from the October 2007 high.

I have been in the game for many years. With each event, it appears to be like Groundhog Day. They pop their heads out and declare they do not see their shadow, so the entire world will disintegrate and that is always based upon opinion. It is never backed by real analysis. Just the standard human trait of assuming whatever trend is in motion, will remain in motion.

Being an institutional adviser, I have never had that luxury. We have had to deal with some of the biggest portfolios in the world. They want accurate forecasting, and it has to be long-term – not day trading. They are not interested in the typical headlines of doom and gloom that the press love to print with every financial event simply to get readership. That is all they care about. It has been the financial version of the fake news.

When we step back and look at this favorite fundamental that people beat to death to predict the end of the world, the national debt, and the collapse of the dollar. Little did they know that the increase in National Debt during the 2007-2009 Financial Crisis was supposed to bring down the sky and end the existence of the dollar. We can see the sharp rise in debt simply made a double top with the Financial Crisis of 1985.

It was that previous 1985 Financial Crisis that set in motion the Plaza Accord which brought together the central banks creating what was then the G5 – now G20. Of course, like every government intervention, the side effect was the 1987 Crash and their attempt to reverse their directive at the Plaza Accord became the Louve Accord. When the traders saw that failed, the collapse in confidence led to the 1987 Crash.

It has always been a CONFIDENCE game as I pointed out with the 1933 Banking Holiday previously. In this case, the failure of the Louvre Accord which came out and said the dollar had fallen enough, once new lows in the dollar unfolded and the central banks could not stop the decline, led to financial panic by 1987 which manifested in the 1987 Crash.

This chart shows the quarterly change in the National Debt since 1966, Here you can see the 1985 and 2008 Financial Crises were on par. Neither one ended the dollar no less the world economy. So when I warned the share market would rally and make new highs and Barron’s laughed in 2010, I said the same thing after the 1987 Crash and people laughed.

In fact, on the very day of the low, I said this was it and that we would rally back to new highs by 1989. That was perfect and the market responded to the Economic Confidence Model (ECM) which has been published back in 1979. This was more than simply forecasting the 1987 Crash and the very day of the low. It clearly established that the ECM had revealed that there was a secret cycle behind the appearance of chaos even in economics.

Larry Edelson was actually a competitor at the time. But Larry respected that the forecast from the model was far beyond what people would ever expect. If we are ever going to advance as a society, we have to stop the bullshit and understand HOW markets trade and WHY. Larry did that. He understood that the model was something larger than just personal opinion.

Even those claiming to be using the K-Wave cannot make real forecasts. The basis of Kondratieff’s argument came from his empirical study of the economic performance of the USA, England, France, and Germany between 1790 and 1920. Kondratieff took the wholesale price levels, interest rates, and production and consumption of coal, pig iron, and lead for each economy. He then sought to smooth the data using an averaging mathematical approach of nine years to eliminate the trend as well as shorter waves. Kondratieff thus arrived at his long-wave theory suggesting that the economic process was a process of continuous waves of boom and bust.

Kondratieff’s work was compelling and contributed greatly to the Austrian School of Economics that first began to develop the concept of a Business Cycle. The general central principle of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory is concerned with a period of sustained low-interest rates and excessive credit creation resulting in a volatile and unstable imbalance between saving and investment. Within this context, the theory supposes that the Business Cycle unfolds whereby low rates of interest tend to stimulate borrowing from the banking sector and thus then result in the expansion of the money supply that causes an unsustainable credit ­source boom which leads to a diminished opportunity for investment by competition.


Here is a chart of the business cycle that was created by a farmer named Samuel Benner. Benner based his work on Sunspots, which actually incorporated solar maximum and minimum that today’s Climate Change zealots refuse to consider. Nevertheless, someone manipulated Brenner’s work and created a chart to try to influence society handing it in with a wild story to the Wall Street Journal published this cycle on February 2nd, 1932, when the market bottomed in July 1932. Still, nobody knew who had investigated this phenomenon in 1932.


When I was doing my own research reading all the newspapers to understand how events unfolded, I came across this chart. I found it interesting that during the Great Depression people were reaching out and some began to embrace cyclical ideas. The problem with both Kondratiff and Brenner was that the period they used to develop their cycles was the 19th century because the real Industrial Revolution was unfolding and in the 1850s, 70% of the civil workforce were all in agriculture. Consequently, if you constructed a model based entirely upon one sector, it would work only as long as that sector was the top dog.

Being a historian buff, it quickly hit me that NOTHING remains constant and that the economy will ALWAYS evolve, mature, and then crash and burn. Where agriculture was 70% of the workforce in 18590, it fell to 40% by 1900, and then down to 3% by 1980.

Just look at energy. The earliest lamps, dating to the Upper Paleolithic, were stones with depressions in which animal fats were burned as a source of light. In cultures closer to the sea, they began to use shells as lamps which they would burn at first animal fat. Clay lamps began to appear during the Bronze Age around the 16th century BC and the invention quickly spread throughout the Roman Empire. Initially, they took the form of a saucer with a floating wick.

We even find Roman oil lamps as luxury items crafted out of bronze. There are collectors of terracotta oil lamps for there is a vast variety of motifs. There is everything from dolphins, and various entities, to erotic oil lamps, which may have been used in brothels. The point is, if you constructed a model on oil, you would have surely accomplished similar results to Kondratief and Brenner.

Then of course, just as the energy moved from animal fats to vegetable oils, by the 19th century it returned to whale oil which was extracted from the blubber. Emerging industrial societies used whale oil in oil lamps and to make soap. However, during the 20th century, whale oil was even made into margarine.

Then the discovery of petroleum and the use of whale oils declined considerably from their peak in the 19th century into the 20th century. Ironically, it was fossil fuels that probably saved whales from extinction. Hence, now we are entering a period where they deliberately want to end fossil fuels and move to solar and wind power. Obviously, just a cursory review of energy reveals the problem of basing a model on the current energy source or major economic industry. Things change with time.