Posted originally on May 27, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Art can be a tangible commodity, but what happens when that art exists only as a concept? Italian artist Salvatore Garau created a statue entitled,Io Sono (“I Am”) that sold for $18,300. The sculpture itself is invisible.
“You don’t see it, but it exists,” Garau stated. The artist focuses on “immaterial sculptures” that exist by thought alone. Still, he believes that Io Sono must be displayed in a private home with climate control and provided with 5 x 5 ft of space. This piece of art could rise in value if consumers believe it to be worth more and are willing to pay more. The coverage this concept has received in the news has certainly caused it to become a conversation piece, and therefore, someone out there may be willing to spend more to have an invisible statue that exists as a concept.
The fine art market has become one of the most effective, sophisticated tools for laundering money. Unlike real estate, stocks, or precious metals, the art market is unregulated, unstandardized, and cloaked in confidentiality. It is considered upscale and a tool utilized by those who already have wealth and need a place to park it. Unlike financial instruments, which must pass through reporting requirements, art often changes hands privately, across borders, and without disclosure of the buyer or seller. In this case, the art does not even need to exist, and yet it still was sold through an official fine art auction house.
Art is not valued like stocks. There are no earnings, dividends, or tangible utility. There is only perception. A Picasso, a Basquiat, or a Warhol are not just artworks; they are safe havens for capital, especially for oligarchs, cartel bosses, and political elites looking to move funds discreetly. A $15 million painting hung in a Zurich vault is more secure and less traceable than a Swiss bank account, which is no longer secure.
Mar-A-Lago was once valued beneath Hunter Biden’s “art.” Hunter Biden’s artwork is estimated to be worth up to $500,000. His personal friend, Kevin Morris, purchased a few pieces and also gave him a loan of $2 million to cover Hunter’s late tax payments. Most of his buyers remain anonymous, but the known art collectors are all associated with the DNC. Hirsh Naftali, for example, was appointed by Joe Biden to be the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad after he expressed interest in his son’s artwork.
Art as an asset is entirely subjective and based on confidence. It holds no inherent value but the public perceives its value and prices it accordingly. Art does not generate income nor does it create economic output. Art is purely speculative and becomes a bubble when confidence peaks.
We saw this in the late 1980s Japanese bubble when Japanese investors were buying Van Goghs and Monets at astronomical prices. That bubble burst along with their real estate and the Nikkei index. We saw it again leading up to 2007–2008, and now, as the sovereign debt crisis looms globally, we’re beginning to see the same flight again. Art can act as a temporary store of value unless you have some extremely rare piece from a renowned artist.
Governments are keen to tax everything, and one day, that could include art. The secrecy and mystery that once caused art to be a store of wealth could collapse if governments act. Since art is primarily used as a temporary asset by those who are already at the top, governments are not yet looking in that direction. Once capital gains taxes are implemented, it will be game over for much of the art world.
Posted originally on May 21, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
BREAKING: Hillary Clinton slams President Trump for insisting that Americans have more kids, arguing that is what immigrants are for. pic.twitter.com/7j1UeK92as
Hillary Clinton infamously blamed women for failing to secure the presidency. Clinton felt entitled to the female vote, but more women voted for Donald Trump than for Hillary Clinton. Instead of acknowledging that women are permitted to hold independent ideas and beliefs, she continually bashes women at every opportunity for not aligning with her views.
“They left me because they just couldn’t take a risk on me, because as a woman, I’m supposed to be perfect. They were willing to take a risk on Trump, who had a long list of, let’s call them flaws, to illustrate his imperfection, because he was a man, and they could envision a man as president and commander in chief,” Clinton said of her 2016 election fail.
In fact, Rodham–or Clinton, as she prefers her married name– believes that Republican women are unfit to lead. “Well, first of all, don’t be a handmaiden to the patriarchy, which kind of eliminates every woman on the other side of the aisle, except for very few,” Clinton said when asked if she had advice for a potential future woman president. “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood has been a popular portrayal of the far left who believe that allowing individual states to vote for abortion, a motion that was implemented by the US Supreme Court and not the president, is akin to a dystopian society where women are silenced and forced to reproduce.
Clinton said that there are a few conservative women, notably those who have attacked Trump, such as Liz Cheney, who are the rare exception. She then perpetuated the lie that is the Project 2025:
“It’s all in there—the return to the nuclear family, the return to being a Christian nation, return to producing a lot of children, which is sort of odd since the people who produce a lot of children are immigrants.”
Take that all in. Hillary was horrified that voters would like America to return to its roots, believing it would be an absolute tragedy if women had the CHOICE whether to work or raise a family, unlike today, where the economy simply does not allow one income to comfortably support a household in most situations. Children should be placed in expensive child care, run by the state, and parents should continue focusing on churning out taxable wages, and allow the system to raise the next generation.
Project 2025 has been debunked, but repopulation theory is alive and well. Hillary admits that immigrants here “legally and undocumented” produce “larger than normal—American standard—families.” The left in America and Europe are aggressively pushing mass migration not out of compassion, but out of desperation and control. When you destroy the economic incentive for families to grow through taxation, inflation, and debt—you kill natural reproduction. The West has done exactly that. Financial constraints are the number one reason that young adults are refraining from having children.
The left believes migrants will be engineered into dependency, relying on government welfare and therefore voting for the party that promises perpetual handouts. This is why lawmakers want to prohibit voter ID checks. It is why states are spending their funds on countless social programs for noncitizens. Traditional Western culture is conservative in nature. Replacing the population with people who do not adhere to the traditional Judeo-Christian ideology changes the dynamics of the population at large.
The traditional nuclear family does not revere the government. Friedrich Engels (pictured above), a pioneer of Marxism, argued against the nuclear family. He believed that the nuclear family perpetuated capitalism, private property ownership, and familial wealth, calling families a “unit of consumption.” Engels believed in communal living, polygamy or group marriage, and the removal of any private property. He argued that this was a feminist concept, as women in that time period were dependent on their husbands rather than the government.
As he writes in “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”:
“The significant characteristic of monogamous marriage was its transformation of the nuclear family into the basic economic unit of society, within which a woman and her children became dependent upon an individual man. Arising in conjunction with exploitative class relations, this transformation resulted in the oppression of women that has persisted to the present day.”
Marxism believes that the patriarchy controls women and the state controls men. It believes we should hand over all power to government who will ensure we are all equal—in poverty, as history has shown time and time again. Traditional roles, and gender roles, threaten Marxist philosophy, which is why we have seen gender identity become a massive controversy in recent years, with the left promoting a genderless society.
Hillary Clinton and everyone on the far left has damned the nuclear family because they uphold Marxist beliefs rooted in centralized government power and control.
Posted originally on CTH on May 20, 2025 | Sundance
… And Director Gabbard may not know they exist.
If you have followed the construct of the Trump-Russia collusion story, you are likely outraged that accountability has not followed. There’s a very frustrating reason for that and I will explain how two distinctly different issues are being conflated. Separating them is the key.
The first issue is the FBI’s illegal surveillance of presidential candidates’, including candidate Donald Trump. The second issue is the Clinton campaign inspired Russia-Collusion story, that led to Crossfire Hurricane, colloquially known as “Russiagate.” All investigative emphasis, including John Durham, has been on the latter which takes you into a DC silo construct where all tentacles lead to dead ends and inaction.
Russiagate was a Clinton-inspired political smear campaign that was given the patina of credibility by the FBI opening the investigation called “Crossfire Hurricane.” If you focus on that storyline, you end up with zero accountability and endless talk that goes nowhere.
However, if President Trump and DNI Tulsi Gabbard reveal the first element, the FBI’s illegal surveillance of candidate Donald Trump, that path has a physical trail and documents that cannot be deflected by political obfuscation.
♦THE FBI SURVEILLANCE – The original agreement between Clinton and Obama going back to 2008 was for Obama to take the nomination, the presidency and then eventually support Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election bid.
Obama would be President. Obama would appoint Clinton to Secretary of State, Hillary would then use her office to build wealth for herself and her family, and then HRC would exit the Dept of State to begin her presidential run.
John Podesta would enter the Obama administration as Hillary left (post Benghazi mess) in 2013. Podesta would look out for Hillary’s interests from his position inside the Obama White House. The Clintons and Obamas never fully trusted each other.
Barack Obama would put all the mechanisms into place that would transition his administration into Hillary Clintons’. That was always the plan running in the background.
In 2015 Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had a check-in meeting; just touching base to firm up the goals and objectives as Hillary began her campaign launch. Podesta then left the White House to take up position inside the campaign, and Obama would maintain Clinton’s interests as planned without a monitor.
All of President Obama’s appointments in/after 2015, were essentially through the prism of assisting Hillary Clinton to win in 2016. Attorney General Loretta Lynch (tarmac meeting), Deputy AG Sally Yates, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and FBI Director James Comey were all part of that.
This is a key point missed by many. In the last two years of Obama, the cabinet and top-tier members of the administration would align their institutional interests to that of Hillary Clinton.
Technically Hillary had eyes and ears all over the White House at the time, and with Hillary Clinton being a foregone conclusion per the expectations of Washington DC, everyone would fall in line during the transition from Obama to Clinton.
Again, this was the general plan. Obama would show up in 2016 to campaign for Hillary and all would be seamless.
The FBI was aware of the plan for transition from Obama to Clinton. Hence, the FBI role in eliminating the threat later presented by the Hillary Clinton laptop scandal, private servers and the subsequent issues of her receiving and transmitting classified information.
Remember, Clinton’s motive as Secretary of State was to sell her position for material wealth. That’s why she used a personal email, maintained her own servers, and generally controlled how her activity could be monitored and tracked. [Also, she didn’t fully trust Obama]
The FBI activity was to support, defend and facilitate the Clinton effort. This is again a key to understanding “Russiagate.”
After March 2016 (Super Tuesday) it became obvious Donald Trump was going to win the Republican nomination. Trump would be Clinton’s opponent.
♦The surveillance – Using access to the NSA database, the U.S. Govt., specifically “FBI Contractors”, began doing political surveillance of Donald Trump’s campaign. This intel was then sent to the Clinton team. Clinton would benefit from knowing the communication inside the Trump campaign. All of that intel was in the metadata captured by the NSA and searched by the FBI contractors.
All of this activity was political surveillance, using govt resources to feed the Clinton team the info.
♦”RUSSIAGATE” – When the Clinton campaign launched the Russia Collusion dirty trick move against her opponent Donald Trump, originally using Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson, the role of the Obama administration was to facilitate the political hit, and at the very least not impede it. Hence, former CIA Director John Brennan briefing Barack Obama on the status of the Russia collusion hoax as it spread in 2016 via the Clinton campaign.
However, as a result of the circle of information, Obama had a problem. The sourcing of the intel could trace to the illegal FBI surveillance of the NSA database. That’s why they needed a plausible shift within the surveillance. That’s where the Carter Page FISA comes in.
Specifically because President Obama was, by extension, now a participant in the Clinton created “Russia Collusion hoax,” and specifically because his administration officials were participants in the process (DOJ, FBI), when President Trump won the 2016 election President Barack Obama was now exposed by the threat the operation represented. This context is the impetus for the January 5, 2017, meeting and subsequent Susan Rice memo.
Following the surprising result in the 2016 election, the team around Obama was constructing plausible deniability.
President Obama did not orchestrate the Russia Collusion hoax; he facilitated it by not interfering with his administration officials who were assisting Hillary Clinton. This is a key distinction.
President Obama knew what was going on and he was willfully blind as it was carried out. However, the mess and fallout from the effort his FBI and DOJ officials put into assisting Hillary Clinton eventually represented a threat to President Obama.
With an assist from pressuring allies in the legislative branch, Robert Mueller and all 19 of his Clinton-aligned Lawfare operatives were put into place to cover-up the mess created within the Russia Collusion operation. Mueller +19 Lawfare embeds continued the Crossfire Hurricane operation, while the extreme Lawfare strategy was deployed against the Trump administration.
That’s the short, encapsulated version.
The Russia Collusion hoax was created by Hillary Clinton, spread to media through Fusion GPS and given the patina of credibility by the DOJ and FBI. President Obama facilitated the operation by not interfering in it, until it became a threat to him personally.
Both the Obama and Clinton political teams supported and organized the Robert Mueller cover-up. All of this activity is because Hillary Clinton was supposed to win.
♦ Awakening the public. Among the information President Donald Trump has requested for declassification, there are two important document sets being overlooked.
#1 is the 2017 99-page opinion of FISA Court presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer covering 2016 FBI Contractor abuse of the NSA database. Tulsi Gabbard needs to get the unredacted version, read it and declassify it. [Yes, revealing the names of the actual FBI contractors]
#2 are the NSA “audit logs” which were preserved by NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, as outlined in his testimony. Where does NSA store their audit logs?
Both document trails outline the FBI conducting political surveillance of the 2016 Republican Presidental nominee, Donald Trump.
This is the originating data that follows a parallel path in the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Both paths, (1) the FBI illegal political surveillance, and (2) the Clinton campaign Russia Collusion/Crossfire Hurricane investigation, intersect at the Carter Page FISA warrant, and merge together. However,it is important to see them as two distinctly different paths.
The illegal surveillance path was made legal retroactively by the FISA Warrant against Carter Page.
Investigating ‘Russiagate‘, as dirty and unseemly as it was, takes you to a place where politics infected the DOJ/FBI and every participant carries plausible deniability. However, investigate the 2016 illegal surveillance of Donald Trump’s campaign via the NSA database and all of that activity cannot be justified.
Focus on the FBI surveillance of the GOP in 2016, by focusing on how they exploited the NSA database.
As to the Audit Logs preserved by Director Rogers, there are two strong likelihoods:
#1) I suspect one of the workstations involved in the database searches will be identified as an FBI workstation in the DC Law Office of Perkins Coie.
#2) I suspect one of the workstations involved in the database searches will be located in the office of Samantha Power at the State Department; with a user id login designated to Power (but she may not have physically logged in).
Both #1 and #2 above are directly connected to Hillary Clinton. #1 was her campaign law firm, and #2 was her former office.
Bottom line. The FBI was conducting illegal political surveillance and funneling the results to the Clinton campaign. There is a document trail directly to this activity, and audit logs showing exactly who was doing it.
Posted originally on CTH on May 20, 2025 | Sundance
In order to understand where we are today, we must understand our journey by remembering its origin.
Context is needed in order to truly appreciate events soon upon us. A Big Hat Tip to Daniel Bocic Martinez who provides one of the most succinct encapsulations of the Hillary Clinton -vs- Barack Obama dynamic.
“Hillary Clinton didn’t trust Barack Obama because he was supposed to have waited his turn.
When the Bill Clinton presidential team in 2000 burrowed into the DNC, and installed HRC into the NY Senate seat, through heavy influence in primary machine politics, the Clintons were the happiest Dems in the country when W squeaked by Gore, leaving them in full control of the DNC money laundering operation for the duration of the W years.
“8 years of Bill, then 8 years of Hill,” was all going according to plan, with Hollywood planting Hillary as President “Easter eggs” throughout media of the 1990’s.
The 2008 primary was the culmination of their plan started decades earlier.
Obama’s 2004 DNC Speech and his Jefferson-Jackson speech were to place him as the heir apparent, but their lock over the DNC (and the superdelegates) was fait accompli.
Even Obama running a near flawless campaign wouldn’t have been enough on its own.
The factors that pushed him over the top, and that were outside his control, were 1) Hillary ran an abysmal campaign, due in large part to her abysmal interpersonal skills and genuine dislike of most human beings; and 2) then patriarch of the Kennedy political dynasty, Ted (whose always loathed the Clintons), pounced on the chink in HRC’s inevitability armor highlighted by her loss in Iowa (where she was outhustled in all 99 counties), and literally embraced Obama in New Hampshire shortly before the primary voting, and crowned Obama as heir apparent of what remained of the political capital once described as Camelot.
The superdelegate tsunami was stopped in its tracks and the rest is history.
With an embittered Hillary not ready to abandon decades of planning and ride off into the sunset, she first hoped McCain would somehow best Obama and then moved to burrow into his administration to maintain some level of control/access to the DNC money laundering operation her crime family ruled over for the better part of two decades.
Obama knew she would be disloyal outside of the administration, even worse in the Senate, spending each moment plotting a 2012 primary challenge (same reason she could never have been VP, she would have poisoned him if given the slot).
So, he made the Faustian bargain that would one day destroy his legacy and place in History and made her the one offer he knew she could not refuse, Secretary of State.
Out of sight, out of mind. He always cared more about his domestic agenda than foreign policy, and if she’s too busy selling political indulgences around the world, she’d put off 2012 primary ambitions and keep her eye on 2016.
Obama’s only obligation was to ensure that he did his part and ensure that his VP choose not to stand for President in 2016, which Biden dutifully complied with. HRC’s remaining embeds at the DNC then did their part in the 2016 primary and ensured the “mistake” of 2008 (heavily contested primary and near-infinite debates) was rectified.
The DNC went on to implement the “pied piper” strategy boosting Donald Trump in the early GOP primary, while being caught completely off guard as previously unknown Vermont Senate gadfly rallied the near plurality of Democrat primary voters who found her character and lack of authenticity repellant.
As the frailty of her campaign become apparent to threats from both Trump on the right and Bernie on the left, Hillary’s embeds in the administration at FBI/DOJ put their insurance plan into effect.
The FBI opened investigations into both [political] threads. For Bernie, the investigation targeted his wife and allegations of fraud surrounding a real estate transaction at her non-profit. For Trump, it was Crossfire Hurricane.
Neither was Obama’s operation by design but nonetheless happened under his watch and with the enthusiastic support of then VP Biden.
Once Trump finishes putting Chapter 9 of Art of the Deal into practice, it will be Obama’s lasting legacy.”
Posted originally on Apr 23, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
The World Health Organization (WHO) has been scheming to finalize the Pandemic Treaty to ensure global cohesion during the next pandemic. Over 190 member nations have agreed to surrender sovereignty in the name of public health, permitting an unelected organization of individuals to detail how they will respond to the next round of government imposed biological warfare.
WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who is not a medical doctor but a Klaus Schwab appointee, declared this as a global victory. Interestingly, Schwab resigned as soon as the treaty was finalized. “The nations of the world made history in Geneva today,” Tedros declared. “In reaching consensus on the Pandemic Agreement, not only did they put in place a generational accord to make the world safer, they have also demonstrated that multilateralism is alive and well, and that in our divided world, nations can still work together to find common ground, and a shared response to shared threats.
The One Health approach defines this treaty, which vaguely recognizes that all life on this planet is connected and therefore, under their rationale, requires a unified approach to problems. The WHO cooperates with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) to form the “Quadripartite” partnership that aims to promote the One Health agenda. The One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP), controlled by the WHO, provides “the science” to guide all mandates.
This treaty provides a group of unelected officials with immense power. There are new financial terms outlined under the new treaty. Manufacturers producing pandemic-related products now must allocate 10% of production to the WHO at no cost, and they must deduce costs by 10% for the WHO as well. Members already pay annual fees to the WHO, but they will now be required to pool funding into a centralized financial mechanism (CFM).
Governments and international organizations will be expected to pay into the CFM. Developed nations will be forced to pay for others as each member has “common but differentiated responsibilities” based on GDP. However, there are discussions that private entities may also be forced to pay to ensure financial preparedness. The funds will be allocated at the direction of the unelected officials at the Quadripartite.
The WHO ensured that there was no transparency during COVID-19. The organization continually protected China at the direction of the Chinese Communist Party, despite the United States being the top donor to the organization. The White House has finally dispelled the COVID narrative perpetuated by “the science” and unelected organizations. They can and will do this again.
Social Distancing: The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation — which shut down schools and small business across the country — was arbitrary and not based on science. During closed door testimony, Dr. Fauci testified that the guidance “sort of just appeared.”
Mask Mandates: There was no conclusive evidence that masks effectively protected Americans from COVID-19. Public health officials flipped-flopped on the efficacy of masks without providing Americans scientific data — causing a massive uptick in public distrust.
Lockdowns: Prolonged lockdowns caused immeasurable harm to not only the American economy, but also to the mental and physical health of Americans, with a particularly negative effect on younger citizens. Rather than prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable populations, federal and state government policies forced millions of Americans to forgo crucial elements of a healthy and financially sound life.
The World Health Organization: The WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was an abject failure because it caved to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and placed China’s political interests ahead of its international duties. Further, the WHO’s newest effort to solve the problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic — via a “Pandemic Treaty” — may harm the United States.
COVID-19 Misinformation: Public health officials often mislead the American people through conflicting messaging, knee-jerk reactions, and a lack of transparency. Most egregiously, the federal government demonized alternative treatments and disfavored narratives, such as the lab leak theory, in a shameful effort to coerce and control the American people’s health decisions.
When those efforts failed, the Biden Administration resorted to “outright censorship—coercing and colluding with the world’s largest social media companies to censor all COVID-19-related dissent.”
Not a single person has been held responsible for one of the worst humanitarian crises in history. The now former chair of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, repeatedly stated that the pandemic would provide an opportunity for a Great Reset where one global entity will reign supreme. The WEF partnered with Bill Gates to co-host EVENT 201—a mock trial for the COVID-19 pandemic, one year before it began. The world is a stage, and we are the puppets that they control. The WHO was not directly involved in Event 201; however, Bill Gates is now the WHO’s primary donor, following the US’s departure.
The WHO requires a 12-month waiting period before a country can formally be removed from the alliance under the WHO Constitution. Donald Trump withdrew on January 20, 2025, with WHO membership officially ending on January 23, 2026. The disease cycle has honed in on 2026 as a major event. I am not saying that Disease X, the next pandemic outlined by the WHO, will occur before that timeframe, but the correlations are undeniable.
Posted originally on Apr 23, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Hungary’s Viktor Orban is fighting declining birth rates with a “population first” agenda that will make parenthood more affordable. “We are building the world’s first family-centered economy,” Orban proclaimed. One of the first steps will be eliminating taxes for mothers.
Mothers with one child will be exempt from paying income tax until they turn 30, while women with two or more children will be exempt from the tax indefinitely. Around 600,000 mothers will currently benefit from the one-child exemption, with another 250,000 expected to benefit from the two or more exemption criteria.
“This is not just a reform; it’s the dawn of a new era for Hungary’s economy,” the prime minister stated.
Hungary reported its lowest birth rate since 1949 last year, with only 77,500 births or a 9.1% YoY decline, according to the Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Anyafalva Maternity Application conducted a study to ask potential parents why they planned to have no or fewer children. Around 52.9% stated that economic struggles were preventing them from having or expanding their family, and 43.8% noted work-related issues. Childcare and inflation, food inflation in particular, were also cited as causes.
Yet, Hungary’s population has been on the decline since the 1980s. At the current rate, the nation will be short 1 million citizens by 2050. The fertility rate remains around 1.34-1.59 children per woman. Another issue is that 7% of Hungarians, or 700,000 people, live abroad. This is especially prevalent with young professionals and skilled laborers, fueling the decline of the economy. Hungary’s private sector is currently short 60,000 workers, with shortages prevalent in health, education, and IT. Hungary’s per capita income is low amongst EU member nations, with 20% of the population at risk of poverty.
Orban has plans to attract Hungarians back home. Housing loan interest rates will now be capped at 5%. There are discussions of capping food prices as well, providing loans to expecting parents, housing subsidies, and even monthly cash payouts.
Eliminating taxes on mothers should be a no-brainer, but Orban is teetering on socialism by attempting to provide government subsidies to the population. Price controls DO NOT WORK. The government should not be permitted to invade the private sector.
Let’s take a look at Venezuela. Hugo Chávez implemented price controls to combat inflation, but it backfired and caused the nation to experience one of the highest rates of inflation in the world. The government arbitrarily set prices without taking note of demand, supply, or the cost taken on by the private sector. Business was no longer profitable, and small mom-and-pop stores disappeared. Those that remained could barely operate and experienced severe shortages of basic goods like food. The people panicked and began to hoard what they could, as they did not know when the goods would be available again. The same disaster occurred in the Soviet Union under Gosplan. Whether it is communism or socialism, any method that decimates the free market ends in an economic collapse.
Hungary also has a massive pension problem and an aging population. The government allocated between HUF 7,200 billion and HUF 7,700 billion in 2025, an increase of 655 billion from 2024. This year, Hungary’s overall budget deficit is expected to reach 4% of GDP. Then add the fact that they are an EU member nation, and despite Orban’s protests, they are forced by Brussels to continue aiding Ukraine indefinitely. Then you have Ukraine infringing on Hungary’s agriculture and energy sectors. Simply put, the government does not have the resources to hand out big payouts or expand its social programs.
“This will be a huge expense, but the reviving economy, the measures to support businesses, and full employment combined are capable of paying for this in a way that the budget deficit and public debt both decline,” he said. Government spending must be reformed before anything can be assessed. Inflation will persist, and capping prices ensures absolute failure. I have never agreed with the income tax in general, so the aspect of eliminating that burden for mothers is perhaps the only solid part of the plan.
Posted originally on Apr 20, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
COMMENT: Marty, do not get discouraged. You are being heard here, and people are listening. Your experience in world finance is unsurpassed. You know how to view the world from 35,000 ft above. There are discussions behind the scenes about the tariffs and your historical views.
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 