Chipotle Seeks Wealthier Customer Base


Posted originally on Feb 10, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Chipotle Mexican Grill | Trophy Club, TX

Chipotle CEO Scott Boatwright publicly admitting that the company is now aiming its marketing and pricing toward households earning over $100,000 a year is a confession that fast food no longer functions the way it used to. What began as the cheap, quick alternative to a sit-down meal has mutated into something unaffordable for the very demographic it was designed to serve.

The interim CEO’s comment that the typical Chipotle customer now falls into the six-figure income bracket and that modest menu price increases are planned is nothing more than a crystallization of the inflationary pressures choking the economy and the erosion of real purchasing power among average Americans.

“What we’ve learned is the guest skews younger, a little higher income, is typically a digital native, and that their grounded purpose aligns with our North Star as a brand, around clean food, clean ingredients, high protein,” Boatwright said, per Business Insider. “We are the way they want to eat, and we’re going to lean into that in the most meaningful way.”

“We learned that 60% of our core users are over $100,000 a year in average household income,” he added. “That gives us confidence that we can lean into that group in a more meaningful way, whether it’s the solo occasion and/or group occasions to really drive meaningful transaction performance in the year.”

Chief Financial Officer Adam Rymer said that menu items will increase by 1% to 2%. Chipotle wishes to position itself as a “healthy” fast-food option for on-the-go professionals rather than a chain restaurant that is reheating frozen food to feed the masses for top profits. The meat they serve is pre-cooked before it arrives at the restaurant, and workers simply boil the pre-cooked bags. I’ll leave it to the MAHA team to determine if it is truly a healthier alternative.

I have written extensively about the fast-food industry abandoning value customers as prices, wages, and input costs soared. Fast food was invented as an affordable convenience for working-class families. But as menu prices have accelerated faster than wage growth for most workers, fast casual chains have begun to shed the low-income customer base in favor of those whose incomes have not been as hard hit by inflation and rising cost structures.

This trend is not accidental. Labor cost increases are triggered by minimum wage hikes at the state and local levels. Even proponents of minimum wage increases acknowledge that higher wages inevitably translate into higher prices, reduced hours, or both. Grocery inflation has been persistent, driven by commodity cycles, energy costs, supply chain disruptions, and climatic factors that reduce agricultural output. I have argued that food inflation would not simply disappear after the pandemic but would continue to exert upward pressure on prices as global conditions tighten.

When the CEO of a major fast-casual chain effectively says “we want wealthier customers,” he is acknowledging that the company can no longer rely on its previous customer base. Chips and burritos are no longer the inexpensive meal they once were; they have become discretionary indulgences for those insulated from inflation’s full impact. Value customers have been priced out.

Free Grocery Stores in NYC?


Posted originally on Feb 6, 2026 by Martin Armstrong

20220104_150713 scaled

Grocery stores in New York have devised a clever marketing tactic by preying upon the economically vulnerable. The latest example is the so-called “free grocery store” stunt in New York, which was quickly seized upon as proof that groceries can somehow be made affordable simply by eliminating prices. This is the same naïve thinking that has failed every single time it has been tried throughout history.

Polymarket and Kalshi agreed to provide free groceries for a limited time. That is not a solution; it is a publicity stunt designed to exploit public anger over the rising cost of living. The real danger is that politicians like Zohran Mamdani seize on this spectacle as justification for government-run grocery stores and price controls.

I have warned repeatedly that price controls never work, especially on necessities like food. Price is not some arbitrary number that greedy corporations invent. Price is the signal that tells producers whether it is worth planting crops, transporting goods, hiring labor, and absorbing risk.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DUTj2wPCWr7/embed/captioned/?cr=1&v=14&wp=500&rd=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.armstrongeconomics.com&rp=%2Finternational-news%2Fnorth_america%2Famericas-current-economy%2Ffree-grocery-stores-in-nyc%2F#%7B%22ci%22%3A0%2C%22os%22%3A737.3999999761581%7D

Every time governments attempt to suppress food prices, shortages emerge. Shelves empty. Black markets form and quality deteriorates. The Soviet Union was not plagued by empty grocery stores because of capitalism, but because price controls eliminated the profit motive that keeps supply flowing. Venezuela followed the same path, blaming merchants for rising prices while systematically dismantling production through controls and confiscation. The result was hunger, not affordability.

We are told that eliminating profit, rent, or “corporate greed” will magically lower prices. In reality, removing profit simply removes supply. When a state-run grocery store inevitably runs deficits, the losses are either covered by taxes and create large budget deficits as taxes alone are never enough to cover the promises of politicians.

Grocery inflation has been driven by energy costs, transportation, labor, regulation, , and global commodity cycles. When politicians reach for control instead of reform, they reveal that they do not understand how the system functions. You cannot repeal supply and demand with press releases or social media optics.

There is no such thing as a free grocery store. Someone always pays whether it is the farmer, the transporter, the taxpayer, or the currency itself. When governments interfere with prices, they are not helping the poor; they are laying the groundwork for shortages, dependency, and ultimately social unrest. You cannot feed the public on empty promises and failed solutions.

Phillip Patrick: “When We Were On The Gold Standard Things Like Runaway Inflation Didn’t Exist”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: August 7, 2025

“Too Late” Powell Is Hurting Americans at This Point


Posted originally on Rumble on Bright Bart News Network on: August 2 2025

The World’s Largest Pension Fund Down $61B Last Quarter – Warning for Japan


Posted originally on Jul 14, 2025 by Martin Armstrong

Japan_Debt_Crisis_2025 6 5 25

The world’s largest pension fund, the Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) of Japan, reported a $61.1 billion loss for the first quarter of the year. Half of the fund’s $1.5 trillion assets under management (AUM) are within overseas markets, and although susceptible to currency fluctuations, the true problem lies in the fund’s other 50% of its portfolio—government bonds split 25% domestically and 25% foreign.

Any pension fund that holds government debt in size and thinks it will return to normal is delusional, as I mentioned back in 2021. They have faith that yields will recover when that is simply not the case. The entire idea of pensions has been set around the average 8 % return in interest rates, but it has been pension funds that are primarily the cause of lower interest rates, not the central banks. The number of pension funds out there created a bid for long‑term bonds.

Japan has the highest debt-to-GDP ratio among advanced economies. The Bank of Japan owns over 50% of JGBs, making it the largest single holder, which has created a rigged market. Yields have been artificially lowered, and capital allocation has been distorted for years. Pension funds, banks, and insurance companies have been locked into JGBs, not because they want yield, but because regulation and policy have given them no choice.

As for Japanese pensions, the large aging population and shrinking workforce have led to fewer taxpayers capable of supporting this growing demographic. GPIF began moving into foreign assets to escape the BOJ’s doomed policy of negative interest rate,s but it is trapped overall. Japan looks to GPIF as a sign of economic confidence, and these losses are a warning.

Socrates has issued bearish long-term outlooks on the Japanese bond market and warns of sovereign debt crises that will directly impact pension systems. Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) pay absolutely nothing, and yet GPIF is required to hold a portion. When there is no buyer left, the burden will fall on the Bank of Japan, and that is simply unsustainable. As the computer has warned, the sovereign debt crisis will begin in Japan before spreading like a contagion.

“The Risk Of Burnouts Will Be 100x Higher By 2030.” Dave Walsh On Preserving Base Loan Power


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 8, 2025, at 1:00 pm EST

Inflationary Pressures Began After 2015 – Tariffs are a Distraction


Posted originally on Jul 9, 2025 by Martin Armstrong

ECM 2015 2020 Detailed

The Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Expectations foresees inflation returning to “pre-tariff” levels. As I have mentioned, the rising costs were a mere price correction and not a permanent rise in inflation. Tariffs were NEVER the root cause of inflation.

The central bank predicts that inflation will read 3% in 13 months, which would be the same level of inflation—at least by the Fed’s calculations—since Trump entered the White House. The Fed was stating that prices would rise 3.6% back in March and April when the tariffs were announced. They blamed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff for the Great Depression, just like they’re now blaming Trump’s tariffs for inflation. It’s a political narrative.

Central bank members see inflation remaining unchanged over the next three to five years at 3% and 2.6% respectively. However, members see prices increasing in food (5.5%), medical (9.3%), gas (4.2%), rent (9.1%), and college tuition (9.1%). There is a plethora of factors leading to inflation in the aforementioned categories, none of which have any relation to tariffs.

BIG BANG ECM 2015.75

Prices have simply not returned to what they once were before the global economy came to a standstill during COVID. Every nation has been affected. The lockdowns and supply chain cracks were exacerbated by a massive increase of government spending. Then the government doubled down on green policies, causing energy prices to rise, and lit the situation ablaze amid the Ukraine war and Russian sanctions. The world was already amid a sovereign debt crisis before COVID, and in fact, the Economic Confidence Model clearly stated that the landscape would permanently change after the Big Bang target of October 1, 2015 (2015.75)—the peak in government confidence.

2015.75 was the beginning of the decline we are witnessing in sovereign bonds globally. The migrant crisis began in 2015 when former German Chancellor Angela Merkel invited Syrian refugees to Europe, leading other Build Back Better nations to follow suit in the years since. Anti-establishment sentiment was already on the rise when Trump first secured the presidency the following year in 2016.

Trump was not the cause, he was the symptom. The people lost faith in the establishment starting in 2015.75 and this is part of the global shift predicted precisely by the system. The Fed thinks inflation is a monetary issue. We are in a sovereign debt crisis, a confidence crisis, and a geopolitical storm and not a normal business cycle.

People Flee Taxation


Posted originally on Jul 8, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

PopulationOfRome

I have written about how Rome fell, and just by mapping the population of Rome, you can see the fate of many current nations and states operating under poor fiscal policies – people sell and just leave. It is different this time because, under socialism, the government has become abusive. When it came to integration, they sought to implement it by sheer force.

You can’t legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. Jobs are created by the wealthy who become wealthy because of their innovative vision – i.e., Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and so on. Henry Ford’s vision created the auto industry. Bill Gates, in bringing DOS to life, created the personal computer industry, as did Steve Jobs. How much employment did just those three men create? Far more than government.

Government creates nothing to advance society or to increase GDP in any positive manner. It is a natural human response not to pay taxes and this is why taxes have been the number one reason for civil war and revolution. It is always resentful to pay taxes, whereas giving money to help someone is rewarding. Taxes tend to support politicians and their pensions. If they must sell some assets to take a government job, it is tax-free. Few leave government without growing their net worth far beyond what one could typically earn through income or investments.

The great welfare state has produced a large segment of fraud and kept many people down since they would rather be taken care of than work to take care of themselves. Even in prison, many people are sentenced to 10 or 20 years, and the first thing they do is commit a crime to get back in, where they do not have to pay taxes, and they are taken care of. You destroy people’s lives for such a long period for non-violent crimes, and then expect them to have a fulfilling life thereafter?

The Evolutionary Cycle of Civilization scaled

In the United States, we have witnessed a significant shift in the population since the COVID-19 pandemic. People are continuing to flee authoritarian states with high taxes like California, New Jersey, and New York in favor of financially friendly states like Arizona, Texas, and Florida.

New Zealand once had a program where if a woman was pregnant and she had no idea who the father was, the government provided everything right down to a free home. They ended up with the highest percentage of women who had no idea who the father of their child was. Naturally, they did know the identity of the biological father, and he would jump out the back window when the social worker visited. They got everything for free then.

Any of these types of programs employ a divide-and-conquer strategy. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government doesn’t first take from somebody else.  When you reach a state where 50% of the people depend upon the other 50% to pay their bills, you end up with class warfare and bitterness. This is the cycle where civilization rises, peaks, and then crashes when government becomes the enemy of the people.

Fractional Banking v Matched Funding


Posted originally on Jul 8, 2025 by Martin Armstrong 

Roman Banker

Banking has existed from the earliest of times and has taken many forms, from safe deposit storage, money changers, merchants with the ability to move money internationally, to money lenders. Some people wrongly assume that they can eliminate the business cycle by eliminating fractional banking. They assume that it will be possible to match lenders and borrowers to maturity contracts. They do not comprehend that this is the line of thinking that always leads to authoritarianism, all the way to communism.

The problem that will emerge from matching lenders and borrowers to a maturity contract is that the boom-bust cycle will still exist. There will always be the perpetual rise and fall in asset values caused by other factors (including human nature), not least of which will be changes in technology, civil unrest, and war that can alter capital flows. History offers a catalogue of solutions. All we need to test such an idea is to open the books.

Athen Akropolis_by_Leo_von_Klenze

People assume the cause of the business cycle is the fractional banking issue, as if that were eliminated, then you would flat-line the business cycle, creating utopia. Be very careful. This was the goal of Karl Marx as well. So the starting point is a basic question. Has fractional banking always existed? NO! Since the answer is no, then did the boom and bust cycle in banking exist even without fractional banking? The stark answer – YES.

In ancient times, financial panics also occurred without fractional banking. In Athens during 354BC, people borrowed money from the Temple unbeknownst to everyone else. They were speculating in real estate. The real estate market collapsed without fractional banking, and then it was exposed that the money was borrowed behind the curtain, so to speak, from the temple. Corrupt priests had all this money donated to Athena. She obviously was very frugal since she never seemed to go on a spending spree to buy shoes, owls, or spears. She wore a helmet so she didn’t need a hairdresser. So the priests could keep their hands out of the treasury. Oops – they were caught lending it out to their buddies for spare change. There was no fractional banking involved. They had the money and lent it to their buddies. The assets collapse because, as always, the mood of people changes with the seasons.

Wisselbank-2

Fast forward to the 17th century, and we find the very same scheme played out by politicians. There was the collapse of Wisselbank in Amsterdam, where people had deposited their money and assumed the bank was strictly a safekeeping facility. They offered no loans and paid no interest. Little did they know, the government was using their deposits to fund its own trading.

Netherlands Provinical - GELDERLAND Provincie 1581 - 1795

The Wisselbank was founded in 1609. Upon first opening an account, a depositor paid a fee of ten guilders, three guilders, and three stuivers for each additional account. Two stuivers were paid for each transaction, except those of less than three hundred guilders, for which six stuivers were paid, in order to discourage the multiplicity of small transactions. A person who neglected to balance his account twice in the year forfeited 25 guilders. A person who ordered a transfer for more than what was upon his account, was obliged to pay three per cent for the sum overdrawn. The bank made further profit by selling foreign coin and bullion, which fell to it by the expiration of receipts, and by selling bank money at five percent and buying it at four percent. These sources of revenue were more than enough to pay for the wages of bank officers and defray the expense of management. (Adam Smith)

In 1602, the United East India Company (VOC) was formed from six trading companies in the Netherlands and granted a trade monopoly over the Indies. The bank was administered by a committee of city government officials concerned to keep its affairs secret. It initially operated on a deposit-only basis, but by 1657, it was allowing depositors to overdraw their accounts, and lending large sums to the Municipality of Amsterdam and the United East Indies Company (Dutch East India Company). Initially, this was kept confidential, but it had become public knowledge by 1790. The City of Amsterdam took over direct control in 1791 as a bailout, before finally closing it in 1819.

There is plenty of history of banking BEFORE fractional banking. Sorry, but that did not stop banking panics nor did it stop the business cycle with the boom and bust events. The Tulip Bubble was not leveraged with fractional banking. No matter what, the boom and bust cycle is driven by human nature. We do have a tendency to change our minds about everything from fashion to money.

The idea of matching lenders and borrowers sounds appealing. However, that will not eliminate the cycle. I can find no instance of such a flat line except during a Dark Age where there was no banking, private ownership, or any real economy. Coinage during the period is rare and is typically confined to the region where it was struck, demonstrating the lack of an economy or circulation due to trade.

Steve Bannon: “Big Tech And Wall Street Grip Washington Like The Monarchy Once Gripped Parliament.”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannon’s War Room on: July 4, 2025, at 4:00 pm EST