Posted originally on Apr 15, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
The United States has about 330 million people, and one in every $3 spent in world trade is by American Consumers. Europe has 450 million people, but it still clings to Marxism, is highly regulated, and is very anti-entrepreneurial. Trump fails to grasp here that trade wars will NOT even the score. The global consumer market seems to be ignored. As I have explained, the Current Account, which people call the trade account, also includes all interest and dividends on stocks, bonds, and investments. In theory, if China bought 100% of the US national debt, then the perceived trade deficit from interest of $1 trillion would flow to China, and this has nothing to do with jobs or manufacturing anything.
Let’s clarify trade. The United States has the largest economy in the world, so it’s the top contributor to global consumer spending. China would be next, followed by countries like Japan, Germany, the UK, India, and so on. Note that China is already the #2 consumer-based economy. Europe is far too Marxist, and it still clings to the old theories of Mercantilism. The average German has less net wealth than an Italian, yet they are the biggest economy.
In recent years, the global GDP has been around $100 trillion. Depending on the economy, consumer spending typically makes up about 60-70% of a country’s GDP. So, if we take 65% of $100 trillion, that’s about $65 trillion in global consumer spending annually in theory. Now, breaking this down by country. The US GDP is around $25 trillion. If US consumer spending is about 68% of GDP, that would be roughly $17 trillion. Therefore, the US share would be 17/65, approximately 26%. That means we have a US consumption-driven economy.
China’s GDP is around $18 trillion. However, consumer spending as a percentage of GDP is lower, maybe around 40%, because their economy is more investment—and export-driven. So 40% of $18 trillion is $7.2 trillion. That would be about 11% of the global total ($7.2T / $65T).
Let’s compare this to Japan’s GDP, which is about $4.9 trillion. Consumer spending there is higher as a percentage, maybe around 55%, so $2.7 trillion. That’s roughly 4.15% globally.
Germany’s GDP is around $4.2 trillion. With consumer spending at around 50% of GDP, that’s $2.1 trillion, so 3.2% globally.
India’s GDP is approximately $3.4 trillion. Consumer spending accounts for a larger part, maybe 60%, so the total is $2.04 trillion, which is about 3.14% of the global total.
The UK’s GDP is about $3.1 trillion. Consumer spending at 60% would be $1.86 trillion, so around 2.86%.
France’s GDP is $2.9 trillion. Consumer spending at 55% gives $1.6 trillion, about 2.46%.
Brazil’s GDP is $2.0 trillion. If consumer spending is 60%, that’s $1.2 trillion, so 1.85%.
Italy’s GDP is $2.1 trillion. Consumer spending at 60% would be $1.26 trillion, around 1.94%.
Canada’s GDP is $2.0 trillion. Consumer spending at 57% gives $1.14 trillion, which is 1.75%.
South Korea’s GDP is $1.7 trillion. Consumer spending at 50% is $0.85 trillion, so 1.3%.
Russia’s GDP is around $1.8 trillion. If consumer spending is 50%, that’s $0.9 trillion, about 1.38%.
Australia’s GDP is $1.6 trillion. Consumer spending at 55% would be $0.88 trillion, 1.35%.
Consequently, the total for these top countries is around 59.65%, leaving about 40.35% for the rest of the world. This is all based on rough estimates. Then we also have nominal GDP vs. PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). However, consumer spending in nominal terms is usually what’s used for such global comparisons, further complicating our exercise.
Another consideration: The figures I used for consumer spending as a percentage of GDP might not be accurate for each country. For example, China’s consumer spending as a percentage of GDP has been increasing but was historically lower. According to the World Bank, in 2022, China’s household final consumption expenditure was about 38% of GDP. The US was around 68%, Japan about 55%, Germany 52%, India was around 59%, UK 63%, France 54%, Brazil 64%, Italy 61%, Canada 57%, South Korea 48%. So my initial estimates were somewhat close but may need adjustment.
US: 25T GDP * 68% = 17T
China: 18T * 38% = 6.84T
Japan: 4.9T * 55% = 2.695T
Germany: 4.2T * 52% = 2.184T
India: 3.4T * 59% = 2.006T
UK: 3.1T * 63% = 1.953T
France: 2.9T * 54% = 1.566T
Brazil: 2.0T * 64% = 1.28T
Italy: 2.1T * 61% = 1.281T
Canada: 2.0T * 57% = 1.14T
South Korea: 1.7T * 48% = 0.816T
Russia: 1.8T * 52% = 0.936T (assuming 52%)
Australia: 1.6T * 55% = 0.88T
Spain: 1.4T * 58% = 0.812T
So total consumer spending from these 14 countries is approximately $41.389 trillion out of about $65 trillion globally.
Now, converting each country’s consumer spending to a percentage of global:
US: 17 / 65 = 26.15%
China: 6.84 / 65 ≈ 10.52%
Japan: 2.695 / 65 ≈ 4.15%
Germany: 2.184 / 65 ≈ 3.36%
India: 2.006 / 65 ≈ 3.09%
UK: 1.953 / 65 ≈ 3.00%
France: 1.566 / 65 ≈ 2.41%
Brazil: 1.28 / 65 ≈ 1.97%
Italy: 1.281 / 65 ≈ 1.97%
Canada: 1.14 / 65 ≈ 1.75%
South Korea: 0.816 / 65 ≈ 1.26%
Russia: 0.936 / 65 ≈ 1.44%
Australia: 0.88 / 65 ≈ 1.35%
Spain: 0.812 / 65 ≈ 1.25%
Others: 36.3%
Please remember that these percentages are estimates of global consumer spending by country based on GDP and consumption patterns. The United States is the largest consumer-based economy in the world, and about 26% of total world spending involves the American consumer. China is only 10.5%, and Japan is at 4.1%. Europe comes in at around 12%.
In summary, China is actively trying to build a more consumer-based economy, with policies and trends supporting this shift. However, structural and demographic challenges might slow this transition into 2028. The progress is evident, but it’s a work in progress. After 2032, they hold the potential to surpass the United States as the financial capital of the world. The problem in the United States is that the Democrats keep trying to oppress the economy like Europe, imposing socialistic goals that are not economically efficient.
Key Evidence of China’s Transition:
Rising Consumption Share of GDP:
Household consumption contributed 53% of GDP in 2023, up from ~35% in 2010. While still lower than the U.S. (~68-70%), this marks significant growth.
Services and high-tech industries are expanding, reflecting demand for healthcare, education, and entertainment.
Policy Shifts:
“Dual Circulation” Strategy:
Emphasizes domestic consumption (internal circulation) alongside international trade, reducing reliance on exports.
Social Reforms:
Efforts to strengthen social safety nets (pensions, healthcare) aim to lower household savings rates, freeing income for spending.
Urbanization and Middle-Class Growth:
Over 60% of China’s population now lives in cities, fostering a consumer class with higher disposable income.
E-Commerce and Digital Economy:
China leads globally in e-commerce (e.g., Alibaba, JD.com) and digital payments, facilitating consumer spending. The digital economy accounts for ~40% of GDP.
Challenges to a Consumer-Driven Model:
Structural Imbalances:
Investment and exports still dominate (e.g., state-led infrastructure, real estate). Transition requires rebalancing toward the private sector and services.
Household debt
has risen to ~62% of GDP (2023), potentially constraining spending.
Demographic and Social Factors:
Aging Population: By 2035, 30% of citizens will be over 60, likely increasing savings and reducing consumption.
Income Inequality: Rural-urban gaps and uneven wealth distribution limit broad-based consumption growth.
Geopolitical and Economic Risks:
Trade tensions and global demand volatility (e.g., post-COVID, U.S.-China decoupling) pressure China to prioritize domestic demand.
Real estate sector
Slowdowns could dampen consumer confidence.
China is deliberately building a consumer-based economy through policy reforms, urbanization, and digital innovation, rejecting the European mercantilist economic philosophy. While progress is evident, structural hurdles, such as reliance on investment aging demographics, mean the transition will be gradual but ongoing. The government’s success in addressing these challenges will determine the pace and sustainability of this shift. China’s economy remains a hybrid model, blending consumption growth with traditional drivers like state investment.
The current account is a key component of a country’s balance of payments, recording international transactions in goods, services, income, and transfers. It consists of four main components:
Trade in Goods (Visible Trade):
Exports and imports of tangible products (e.g., machinery, vehicles, electronics).
The balance of trade in goods is often referred to as the “merchandise trade balance.”
Trade in Services (Invisible Trade):
Exports and imports of intangible services (e.g., tourism, financial services, education, consulting, transportation).
Combined with trade in goods, this forms the trade balance (goods and services).
Primary Income (Income Flows):
Cross-border income from investments and employment:
Investment income: Dividends, interest, profits from foreign investments (e.g., dividends from overseas stocks).
Compensation of employees: Wages, salaries, or benefits earned by workers in a foreign country (e.g., remittances from expatriates).
Secondary Income (Current Transfers):
One-way transfers where no goods, services, or assets are exchanged in return:
Remittances: Money sent by migrants to their home country.
Foreign aid/grants: Government transfers (e.g., disaster relief, development aid).
Pensions, gifts, or donations: Transfers between individuals or organizations.
A Trade War based on just the gross of the Current Account does NOT reflect our trade deficit or surplus.
Foreign investors overall own roughly 10-20% of Manhattan’s high-end residential properties (e.g., condos), with Europeans constituting a significant but minority share of this group. For example, if Europeans account for 30-40% of foreign-owned properties, their stake might be 3-8% of Manhattan’s luxury residential market. While exact figures are elusive, Europeans likely own 3-7% of Manhattan’s total real estate, with higher concentrations in luxury residential and prime commercial sectors. This is only an estimate and not definitive. Any income, such as rents, on that property will flow out through the current account and will appear as a trade deficit when it has NOTHING to do with trade.
As of 2023, approximately 23-24% of the total U.S. national debt is held by foreign entities. This calculation is based on foreign holdings of around $7.4 trillion out of $31.4 trillion at the time. Therefore, of about $1 trillion in interest expenditures. Thus, about $230+ billion is flowing out through the current account that has nothing to do with trade. The major holders of US national debt include Japan, China, and the United Kingdom.
Understanding these components is now CRITICAL in the middle of a trade war. The sale of US debt will go through the capital account, but it will reduce the interest paid to foreigners that go through the current account, creating the illusion of a trade deficit. I disagree with Trump’s formulas, and the risk of a permanent trade war with China is now assured unless he gets on a private phone call. You cannot make public demands against China for then they cannot back down based on their culture.
Posted originally on Apr 10, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
There has been ongoing speculation about America’s holdings of foreign gold reserves. Elon Musk’s request to audit Fort Knox pushed the issue into the headlines once more. Now, the new incoming German government is discussing pulling their gold reserves from the New York Fed due to a lack of transparency and the public is asking—where is the gold?
I personally toured the New York Fed many years ago, and while there is gold there, I cannot verify the quantity or quality; no one has ever accomplished such a feat. The last full audit of US gold reserves occurred in 1953 under President Eisenhower. Auditors from the US Treasury and Mint verified domestic and limited foreign-held gold at the New York Fed and Fort Knox. Third-party auditors were not permitted, but there were US Congressional observers. Treasury Secretary George M. Humphrey and Mint Director William H. Brett were in charge of overseeing this audit.
Now, the government declared the audit to be a “full” inspection. However, only 3 of the 22 compartments at Fort Knox were examined, accounting for only 13.6% of gold holdings. Around 88,000 bars (34.4M oz) were meticulously counted, and auditors weighed around 9,000 bars (130 tons). Only 26 gold bars, selected at random, were drilled to confirm purity. Auditors confirmed that US gold certificates matched physical holdings at the New York Fed, but due to limited sampling and a lack of transparency, suspicions rose. “We have no reason to believe other melts would differ [from assay results],” the joint commission stated.
The gold examined was mainly domestic. Germany’s holdings, for example, were not part of the audit. Public confidence in the US government was on the decline at this period amid Cold War secrecy. Around the same time of the audit, the CIA admitted it to Operation Ajax—a covert operation to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and install Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. This was the first time that the US government openly admitted to orchestrating a coup and installing a leader in a foreign nation. How could the public and/or foreign nations trust the US under these conditions?
(Sources: Treasury 1953 Report, Sound Money Defense League, FRASER).
The GAO/Treasury conducted the next audit in 1974, reviewing 21% of gold holdings at Fort Knox. This occurred in the post-Bretton Woods period after Nixon abandoned the gold standard. Again, third-party auditors were not permitted to attend, and this time, auditors did not weigh bars. Some called the September 1974 examination a “show audit” and a publicity stunt as only 1 of the 13 vaults was examined. The “real” audit occurred the following month by a joint GAO-Treasury committee, but as mentioned, only 91,404 bars of 367,500 were examined. Random samples were tested for purity, but there was no assaying or weighing.
Continuing audits were ongoing, and the US government pledged to inspect 10% of its gold holdings annually from 1975 to 1983. As of 1985, the government stated it had audited 89% of its gold holdings, but only through seal verifications and limited sampling. Again, only the US government had access to these vaults.
The matter was ultimately laid to rest until 2012, when US politicians like Ron Paul and foreign governments demanded another audit. Germany was threatening to relocate their US holdings at the time due to a lack of transparency, and had been increasingly calling for an audit in the decades leading up to 2012. To appease doubters, the Treasury OIG conducted another limited audit.
The 2012-2013 NY Fed Audit scope included 34,201 US-owned gold bars (418 tons). Less than 1% (367 bars) were tested for purity. Auditors did not weigh the gold, nor did they conduct a full inventory. All compartments were to remain sealed unless they had reason to suspect tampering. Again, no independent assayers were admitted. Worse, foreign holdings were not inspected. Germany’s gold, for example, was not reviewed but they maintained trust in the US government despite some backlash.
Fast-forward to 2025: DOGE is uncovering government waste and mismanagement and has set its sights on Fort Knox. The US Treasury declared any audit a breach of national security. A true audit of Fort Knox, not including the NY Fed, would take 18-24 months and require 44,000 hours. Foreign governments now have a seemingly plausible reason to point their finger at the US and call “FOUL PLAY!”
Here’s the thing–no nation completely audits its gold holdings. The UAE, for example, implemented mandatory annual audits but only examined 10-20% of its holdings. There is limited transparency as their audits are classified, but they do permit third-party audits and follow London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) standards. Switzerland also follows LBMA standards and conducts regular audits, but auditors only check seals as there is no physical count. Switzerland is far more transparent about its auditing process, but again, they are only looking at a small percentage of overall holdings and not weighing or physically assessing the gold. Any nation could point the finger at another and question the validity of its stockpile.
As for US gold holdings, there have not been any official sales. If anything is missing, then that means it was stolen. However, the media is honing in on the US without understanding that no foreign nation conducts a full audit of their gold holdings. It all comes down to trust in the government, not only the current administration but every administration that has come to pass.
Posted originally on Apr 8, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Some believe that Donald Trump is deliberately attempting to cause a sharp downturn in equities to force a flight into treasuries. If so, the Federal Reserve would have more of a reason to slash interest rates—Trump’s longstanding desire. Trump has stated that the markets are undergoing an “operation” of sorts, but I would not underestimate his long-term plan here.
Trump openly states that he wants companies to move manufacturing to the US to avoid tariffs. This will also promote domestic trade as companies will seek to avoid levies. US farmers will be incentivized to sell domestically, which could lower the price of groceries much to the pleasure of the American public.
The idea that a decline in the stock market could actually cause a flight into treasuries sounds counterintuitive on the surface, but when you understand how capital flows and confidence operate globally, it makes perfect sense. Capital moves globally and always seeks the safest place to park. Unexperienced and retail traders tend to panic at larger downturns and sell off.
Everything comes down to CONFIDENCE. A downturn in equities could cause a kneejerk reaction into treasuries because people still trust that the government will make good on their payments. Big institutional money began fleeing the public sector for the private sector years ago. What we have seen since the implementation of Trump’s tariffs is a new demand for treasuries.
The 10-year treasury yield dropped from 4.25% in late March 2025 to 4.01% by April 1, while the two-year fell to 3.68%. Billions have fled into the bond market since these tariffs were announced. JPMorgan, for example, said that there is now a 60% risk of a recession and is shifting toward the bond market.
Lowering treasury rates will make homes more affordable by decreasing mortgage rates. Individual nations were fleeing US treasuries, creating a massive risk for an eventual default. Suddenly, at least temporarily, the stock market no longer seems like a safe place to park money. The Trump Administration first showed the world that it was cutting spending and attempting to reduce the deficit. A downturn in rallies DOES NOT guarantee a rally in the bond market, but we are witnessing a short-term flow into treasuries. However, the computer has warned that 2028 will mark a major turning point in confidence where any remaining confidence in government vanishes. For now, we may enjoy a temporary decline in treasury yields due to these tariffs.
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 