The Duran Podcast - Geopolitical And Economic Turmoil w/ Martin Armstrong

Episode Date: August 8, 2024

Geopolitical And Economic Turmoil w/ Martin Armstrong

Okay, we are live with Alexander McCurice in London, and we are very happy, very honored to have with us, the one and only Martin Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong, thank you for joining us on the Duran. How are you doing today? Oh, pretty good. I'm at least in the safe place of the U.S. in Florida. All right. And where is the best place for people to follow your work? Armstrongeconomics.com. We keep it out as a public service. You don't have to register. We don't sell advertising.

That always irks me when you try to look at the site and you'll have to constantly click things away. So it's an open source, so basically everybody around the world can look at it. And that's what we're really trying to do. It's really, you know, further the education of people since mainstream media has basically, you know, abandoned us, really, pretty much everywhere. Agreed. Agreed.

And I have that link to Armstrong Economics. I have that in the description box down below. I will add that as a pinned comment as well. We recommend that everyone watching this stream definitely. Part of Armstrong and the great work that he is doing. in Armstrong Economics. Let me just say a quick hello to everyone that is watching us on Rockfin,

on Odyssey, on Rumble, on YouTube, and on the durand.locals.com. A big thank you to our moderators for everything they do to help keep the chat running. Alexander, Martin Armstrong.

Let's talk about geopolitics and the economic situation. We have a lot of news to cover. So, Alexander. Let's get started. Absolutely, and with whom better to discuss geopolitics and economics than with Martin Armstrong. Now, if I may say, Mr. Armstrong, you may take issue with some of the things I'm going to say now. I think one of the things that makes your commentary, for me, most unusual, is that, firstly, you've been somebody who's actually worked in the market.

So you know how they work, you've been there, you've done that, you've traded, you do that sort of thing. You're also somebody who looks at broadcasting and who looks at economic theory. And then, of course, you also bring a historical perspective. Now, that is extremely unusual in my experience. My usual experience of people who work in markets is that history for them is what happened 10 minutes ago, not what happened maybe 100 or 50 years ago or even beyond that. I mean, I was looking at your site earlier, for example, and I noticed, you had a piece written about the English Civil War of the age of 1640s.

This is not as a centivocal of people who work in markets. And this is something which I think explains a great deal about your field for events and your work as a forecaster. Because obviously if you're going to forecast effectively, you have to look backwards as well as forwards in order to understand. better what is more likely to happen. So you are somebody who's associated with a particular idea about forecasting, a way of looking at events and sensing how they will happen.

And I wonder whether perhaps, because there's something that interests me personally, you could describe that briefly before we get into the events of today. Well, I think that, first of all, being an international hedge fund manager, I used to manage a hedge fund for Deutsche Bank and Bagdam and others, but you have to look at the entire world. And it's capital flows around the world. And it's always going to these hot markets or whatever, like when Greece was in trouble, you know, all the trade. You know, Greece broke and they go, okay, who's next? Oh, Spain, you know, let's go over there. That's the way capital really functions. And I was interested in why countries rise and fall. And when you end up really looking at it, the one thing that makes history always repeat is it's not the event.

I mean, fine, in Roman times, if I wanted to kill you, I'd use a sword. Today, I use a gun. I mean, you're still dead. The technology changes, yes. But the one thing that remains always constant is human nature. And, I mean, you can go back to the first sovereign defaults are recorded in Greece from 400 BC. I mean, nothing's really changed. I mean, Spain defaulted seven.

times in a row. You know, this is, I mean, France, I mean, this is, you have to just look at it from a perspective of human nature. And people will respond to similar events the same way. And the thing that has struck me over the years, because I've been, I mean, I suppose that the fair statement is when we were going to open an office in. Geneva back in 1985. I knew there was some

anti-Americanism in Europe. And so I had come up with a list of European names, European advisors, whatever. And I went to lunch with one of the heads of one of the top three banks. And I had this list and I said, gee, what would you

recommend we use? And he asked me, he said, name one European analyst. And at the time I really couldn't. We were talking about foreign exchange. And I said, I'm sure there are. I just don't know of any. And he laughed. And he said, there are none. He says, you don't realize why everybody uses you. I said, no, not really. And he said, because the dollar, you don't care if the dollar goes up or down. I said, it's just a trade. And then he explained to me that like after World War II, because

the currencies that were starting from zero, you know, the, like, German chancellors would stand up and say, vote for me, see the Deutsche marks up 10% against the dollar, shows I did a good job. So it became a political issue. So no analyst of any of the major banks would dare say, oh, gee, the Deutsche Marx can't go down because that's a statement against the government. And even to this day, you won't find any of the major institutional analysts say, gee, the euro might crash. The ECB will pick up the phone and say fire that guy. Estonia, there was an economist there that came out and said there was going to be a crash after 2007. They put them in jail for six months. You know, we're starting to see the, you know,

the cancel culture, things of this nature when you get into, you know, COVID and things of that nature. But it's been around in financial markets for a lot more than people realized. In the United States, currency was never a political question. No president could run for office and say, vote for me, the dollar's up against the Mexican peso by 10%. And they would look at him like, what's that mean? It was just irrelevant. bit. And so we, because we did the currency, that and the connection to politics, that's why I ended up getting dragged into just about every government around. When they

were fixing the euro, they came to us, became friends with Maggie Thatcher, all because of the currency, basically. When you had the 1990. Asian currency crisis. The Bank of China actually called me in over there for help. It's been an interesting career. But the politics and the currency are linked, much more so than stock markets or gold or something like that. So what I've just found is even with war,

We had a client, one of the major banks in Lebanon, and they asked us if we could do a model on the Lebanese pound. I said, sure. They said they found a ledger in the basement with somebody wrote the prices down every day back to mid-19th century. We put it in the computer, and out came. I thought there was something wrong with the data because it said the country was going to fall apart in eight days. and I said, there's got to be something wrong here. I mean, and he says, very calmly, he asked, well, what currency, you know, does it recommend? I said, well, this was Frank.

Eight days later, the Civil War began. We had a client very big in Saudi Arabia, had one of the biggest shipping companies. And he called one day and he says that Iraq's going to start attacking shipping in the Gulf. What do you think gold's going to do tomorrow? I said, you tell me a war's going to start tomorrow? Yeah, yeah, yeah. What do you think? So over time, I began to realize if there's going to be a war, somebody knows in advance.

And they start moving their money or whatever. So even, you know, the SECUs thought that are models like that for 9-11, who puts on the airlines a few days in advance. probably all came to a major head when actually I was in London there in June of 98 and we did a conference there for our clients. And I didn't realize the London FT had snuck in the back. And I stood up and I said, look, Russia's going to collapse and I give it about 30 days. and the London FT ends up putting it on the front page. Armstrong says Russia is going to collapse

and we're going to have all these nooks running around. And that became the long-term capital management crisis. But it's very simple. I mean, our computer was showing, yes, there was $100 billion going into Russia, but there was $150 billion coming out. I mean, obviously, you know, I think a three-year-old with a pocket calculator can figure out something's going to go, you know. So the computer basically is monitored everything.

Like I said, I was in Geneva in the 80s, and we were all dealing with the OPEC money back then. And then Japan starts rising. So the capital starts being attracted to Japan. The talent left. The biggest brokers from Geneva left and went to go work in Tokyo. So I saw the capital movement. and even the talent moves. So after Tokyo was done, oh, Southeast Asia, let's go down there.

And that's how it really works on a global scale. So I just, I had to observe it. But so the cycles are really about human nature. And when you take the economy in one direction, and you're always going to get political change. Just look at the politics right now. In EU, the flips to one side, France ends up being in UK there, and you'll see the same thing in the United States.

It's off in Bangladesh, too, in Venezuela. What is going on? It's not a left or right type thing. It's more or less, whoever's in power just throw the bums out. It just seems to be that on a global scale. I don't think you can say it's a far right movement or far left movement because you're getting opposite trends just about everywhere. But that is standard. You look at the Great Depression, all right?

1933, you see FDR comes to power in U.S. Mao comes to power in China. And, you know, this is basically what you're seeing. Hitler comes to power in Germany. You take the economy in one direction, and they will always throw out whoever is there, and it's not a particular philosophy. It's whoever's there gets blamed and they're out. So that's what I've observed over basically working in the industry for 50 years.

And it's the currency ended up bringing us into politics and working in governments and stuff like when they were going to form the G5 back in 1985. I was called into that. And then you begin to realize that they're even dog and pony shows. They have their ideas, what they want to do. They call in 35 of us and say, oh, we've listened to the top experts in the world. Then they stand up and they say whatever they wanted to say to begin with. And they had nothing to do with anybody testifying about, oh, yes, lower the dollar by 40%. that's a good idea.

I had written to Reagan at the time, and I said, this is crazy. You know, you're going to cause a crash within two years. And then when the 87 crash comes, then, oh, we have to get you in because you're the one that said what happened. You know, you sold the third of the national debt at the time to Japan. Now you say you're going to lower the dollar by 40%. I said, they're going to sell. Why? Because they're going to lose money, you idiot.

You know, these people in government have zero, absolutely zero intelligence when it comes to international finance or anything. And this is much of our problem. You know, you can't, you know, stand up and say, vote for me and I'll end the Depression. If the whole world's in a Depression, you're not going to end it. You know, there's a contagion that goes around the whole world. That's pretty much it. You're absolutely right when you say that people in government often don't understand anything very much, certainly not about how trading and business takes place.

Just to give two examples, which we've talked about. One was the oil price gap, which we said wouldn't work, the Russian oil price gap. The other one was a plan we've had in Europe to buy shells on the international arms market. and we predicted it wouldn't work and surprise, surprise it didn't. Not in the way the people thought. Where are we now? Let's go to the situation that we have today because we just had a wobble in the markets.

Perhaps you can tell us a little bit about what that means, but perhaps you can also explain things better in the wider context because you've been telling us a lot, you've been saying a lot recently, very interestingly, about the direction of travel, in the United States, in the world economy generally, and of course, in the politics that follows. But where are we now? What is, what should we look, what should we expect over the next? Well, I'm not going to ask you to give a particular day for, you know, but, you know, within the sort of foreseeable time, if you like.

Well, you have to understand that, yeah, you have a lot of these people running around saying, oh, the stock market's going to crack. the biggest crash in history. Okay. All they're looking at is the charts from 29. And they don't, okay, what was the actual fundamentals behind it? And they don't look at this. In 1929, U.S. had a balanced budget. You know, Keynes, you know, at that time, his theory probably, you know, made sense.

Okay, fine, we can raise in lower interest rates to affect the demand because the government was not the biggest borrower. Today, the government is the elephant in the room. You raise interest rates to try and stop inflation. Guess what? They spend more. No politician says, oh, gee, the central bank is raising interest rates. They mean we should spend less.

That will never happen. And, I mean, I deal with more of essential banks than probably anybody. mainly because I understand the game. And they are all pretty much in trouble because Keynesian economics no longer works because the government is so big. And so you can't, you know, Powell raises interest rates and the interest expenditures of the government exceed a trillion. You know, it's, and I can tell you, I mean, I mean, I've been dealing. with central banks all over the world. And the number one rule they all have, you do not criticize your current administration. The last time the Federal Reserve criticized the White House was

1951 over the Korean War. They wanted it to keep interest rates capped and they said no. You just had last December, Powell came out and said, this spending is. is unsustainable. It's the first time since 1951 that he has criticized the administration. That is showing you there is a serious problem, and they know that. They can't stop the inflation. They can't do anything. And all I could come out with and say, you know, knock off all this crazy spending.

People, you know, the other problem, that I think a lot of academics have is that things have changed. And, you know, one of the top 10 universities asked me if I would consider teaching there. And I said, no, I'm not going to teach a classroom with 30 people, you know. And I asked them, why are you asking me? And they actually said, we know what we teach doesn't work. I said, well, that's the first step, you know. But they don't even teach foreign exchange hedging.

They're still teaching theories from Bretton Woods. And it's a complete disaster. And then you wonder why the politicians don't know anything. But effectively, you're just going down this point where in the 20s, it was the private sector that was in trouble, not the government. This time, it's the government that's in trouble, not the private sector. So do you really want to sell all your stock and go buy government bonds? I don't think that makes any sense, and you're going to lose your shirt. Because what these people are doing, I can tell you, I mean, I've even met with board members, I'm FEE. There's probably nobody I haven't really met with.

around the world one way or another. But they take this digital currency issue. What's really going on is the IMF has already created its digital coin. And what they're really looking at is war. Why? Because they're going broke and they know that. They can't continue this spending. When a government fails, and this is what history tells us, okay, when do they fail?

People talk about, oh, it's $34 trillion. It could be, you know, a quadrillion. That doesn't matter. What matters is when you can no longer sell it. As long as somebody's still in line to buy, they can keep kicking the can down the road. The problem comes when you're, because we're in this Ponzi scheme, they sell new debt to pay off the old. We're still paying interest on World War II debt. They've never paid anything off.

You give a trillion dollars to Ukraine, guess what? It's going to cost you another two trillion in interest expenditures. This stuff never ends. All right. So effectively, you're just looking at a complete disaster going forward. And this is what I've heard is from your former head of NATO as well as in Washington. Oh, Putin will never push the button. We can just basically just walk in there.

And we even have some crazy people saying, oh, we could take Russia in three days. Why do they want Russia so much? It's got nothing to do with democracy. that's all a lie to. You had Lindsey Graham, who's one of the biggest neocons, was on Face the Nation about a month ago. Suddenly it wasn't about democracy. He says, oh, there's $10 to $12 trillion of natural resources,

which is a gas field under Crimea. We can't allow, he says, Russia and China to get that. You know, and Russia was basically, even in the 19th century, it was the largest economy in the world, at least on two occasions. When 1917 came, a lot of people don't know. They probably, you know, make a good plot for a movie, but they hid the gold reserves. Russia had the largest gold reserves of any country on the planet. They've never been found. Rumor is they put them in a hole in a forest or dumped them at the bottom of a deep lake.

Nobody's been able to find where those gold reserves were. But they wanted to make sure the communist didn't get it. So these people think if they go in and they take up, Russia, that they will have all this wealth and to be able to survive and reduce their debts. And I've told them you're absolutely out of your mind because I don't care how much money you get. You'll still spend more. That's just the way they are. They don't know how to run for office anymore unless vote for me and I'll give you this.

I mean, it's always a bribe. And I can tell you it's become such polarized party politics. I could run for Congress in the United States here. I'll say whatever you want me to say. I'll save the whales. I'll do whatever it is to get elected. Then you get down there and there's day one, there's a meeting. And you're told, okay, great, glad you got here.

Now, this is the way. runs and you will vote according to what they tell you. And if you just look down, look objectively at the votes, they're down party line. So it's all just a nonsense. It's guys in the back room to make these decisions. And this is what we're going to do. They have no clue about the world economy. And I can tell you before 1999. I used to be part of the vetting process for people who wanted to be president. They would send me in to say, okay, fine. I was, you know, from their perspective, I was there to come to explain how the world really works.

But I was basically told to, do you think he, I'll get back, I'm debriefed, what do you think? Is he smart enough? Can he handle it? Blah, blah, blah. Then in 1999, I was asked to go down to go meet with Bush Jr. I said, yeah, okay, fine. And they said, no, this one's different. I said, what's different?

They said, oh, no, he's really stupid. And I said, excuse me? I mean, up to that point, there's always somebody smart enough to be president. Now all of a sudden, we move 180 degrees in the opposite. And I said, why would you make somebody stupid president? And they said, look, he's got the name and we can win. And ever since then, if you look at it, Obama never attended 40% of his briefings in the morning. You know, Biden spends 40% of his time in Delaware.

This is what they want. Camilla's going to be the same thing. People don't realize the real role of the president is you sit there. at a cabinet meeting. And a cabinet is the heads of all these agencies. People call the deep state today. And each one is like a two-year-old child. Everyone wants their own way.

Okay. And so if you don't have a strong president, and he's not even there, you get the chaos that we have today. You have the EPA outlawing gas stoves. You know, you have blinking from the State Department, threatening World War III on four fronts. You know, it's, and you have to look and you go, what the heck is going on here? It's just total chaos.

So this is the state that we are in. They put these sanctions on Russia, which was absolutely brain dead. Because it is, that's what the bricks is about. It's not gold or anything like that. This is geopolitical. Suddenly, other countries realize, wait a minute, if I don't do what you tell me to do, you'll remove me from Swift, all right? And most people don't realize, but the one who started this was Christine Lagarde when she was at the IMF.

She started going threatening these tax havens. You give us all the names of people there or we're going to remove you from Swift. She even did that to the Vatican. All right. So then when Russia went into Crimea in 2014, Obama went to Swift and said, we want you to remove them. And they've refused.

They said, no, you're not going to turn this into a geopolitical weapon. So what they do, they replaced the head of Swift in 2019. He does whatever he's told. So that's what the bricks is really about. You've divided the world economy. China setting up their chip system. Even Iran has a system setting up. You know, you can't blame them when you're going to use the world financial system as a weapon.

It's supposed to be independent. That's what made the world economy function. And when you start dividing it up and using it as a weapon against one country versus another, This is the state that we're in. And this is why I say, don't buy government bonds of any government. I'm telling you, they're always the fault. There's only one, and I've researched this aggressively. There's only one country I know that ever paid off its national debt.

One time in the United States under Andrew Jackson. The other time internationally was Romania. Everybody else is always defaulted. You can go buy the bonds on eBay, plenty of bonds from Asia, Europe. That was what made the Great Depression so bad. 1931, most of the countries basically defaulted. Britain went into a moratorium and suspended interest payments. They at least went back.

But, you know, governments, I mean, look at Italy. When they couldn't, you know, basically deal with the debt, you had 90-day paper. They converted it to 10 years. You know, so, I mean, you know, you just have to be careful because there are no rules when it comes to government. And government that never prosecutes itself. They prosecute you, but never itself. Okay. So, you know, just, you know, that's what we're really in.

So we're looking at this is a shift of tangible assets, basically, versus government. And yes, the stock market coming down initially, because you have all these people saying, oh, the greatest crash in history, blah, blah, blah, okay. And, you know, at the same time, you have all these people pushing for war. The one thing you do not want to do is by government debt. In time of war, it will be endless. And on top of that, you know, you're looking at putting in capital controls. In Europe, realizes they made the mistake in getting in the war with Russia.

We'll put on capital controls to prevent money from leaving. This is no standard. World War I, what did they? do. They close the stock markets. Even go back to the Civil War in the United States. All right. Abraham Lincoln shut down the gold exchange. They all, that's what I mean. History repeats because they will always respond to a threat

against their power the same way. And I don't care what culture you're looking at, what government, who it is, what century? Always the same. Okay. I can't hear you. Let me ask a question and let me preface it with a bit of history. So Habsburg, Spain, they have a government credit crisis in the 1640s. They collapse. Ming Dynasty China, not widely known, they have a government credit crisis in the 1640s.

They collapse. The reason they collapse is because nobody is prepared to lend to the emperor. So he doesn't have money to pay his troops. and he collapses. We know that in France, in the 1780s, exactly the same thing. Happens, the king can't borrow, and he can't raise taxes.

He calls the Estates General. The French monarchy collapses. Britain goes through a similar process. At first, in the 1930s, they have to default. It's not widely known, but Britain did actually default. In the 1940s, they defaulted on their war debt to the United States. They took sterling off the gold standard, and they defaulted a second time in the 1940s. Again, not widely known, but they did.

Where are we now? Are we close to a position where we're going to have a government debt crisis now? Because the history of government debt crises is one of two things. Either the government defaults can't pay money, can't pay its soldiers, can't play its civil servants. that sort of thing, or they try to monetize their way out of trouble, which has happened many times in history. The Romans tried it, as you probably know your history, the Romans tried it in the third century. They then went to a gold currency and the later that stabilized things, and that that ran out. And we actually have now, you know, records which shows that one of the major things that happened was that Roman soldiers simply

stopped being paid because the government didn't have the money to pay them. What are we looking at? Are we in that sort of kind of scenario now? Because you hear all sorts of people who say, clever people who tell us all the time, governments can't run out of money, they have an infinite ability to produce money. Treasuries can produce money infinitely. We're now in a completely different situation from what we were when all these previous historical events took place. Of course, government credit this time is going to be fully good. Where are we? What is going to happen?

And does this affect the core country of the West, which is the United States, where, as I understand it, debt is now growing by about a trillion dollars every three months? Yeah, I mean, nothing is going to change. You know, they used to, I mean, even Sir Thomas Gresham used to represent England in the Amsterdam Exchange. And that's where he came up with bad money drives out good because nobody would lend to the king because he kept debasing the currency to repay it. Then they just stopped lending. That's what these things are about. And the Ponzi scheme ends when you cannot sell it. And the stupidity of those in government is just, it's endless.

It really is endless. You have blinking ahead of, he's a neocon, the head of state department. Threatening China over Taiwan. Well, China was the largest holder of U.S. debt. They started dumping $53 billion. the first quarter of this year. They're not going to buy debt. And Janie Allen hops on a plane, goes over there and says, oh, please buy her debt. And they basically said, excuse me, you want us to lend you $100 billion so you can buy some missiles to shoot us. This is how crazy this is

actually become. And I mean, you take Ukraine. It was basically, we instigated the war. It was after 2014, they put in an interim government, unelected. That was the government that basically started the civil war against the Dumbos. And, you know, when Zelensky was elected, he promised peace. And he's done everything. It's the opposite. And in all honesty, nobody really cares about the Ukrainian people.

people. They just don't, it's the vanguard and it's basically to poke the bear. That's it. And I mean, there's even tapes of Lindsey Graham saying, you know, it's the best money we ever spent to kill Russians. You know, I mean, if you said that on the street about somebody, that's called a hate crime and they put you in prison there in Britain, right? But now, we're We're basically beyond repair. I have a solution. I've argued it, but the problem is they lose power so they don't want to take it. And if I was to straighten it out, I would deal with the same way I have had to deal with governments.

I mean, with multinational companies. You do a debt to equity. Sorry to interrupt. Tell us what this solution is. What is the solution? It's a debt to equity swap, basically. Okay, so what you do is you take the debt that's there. You basically say, okay, fine, we'll give you a coupon.

You got a 30-year bond. You go back. You get a coupon for it. The coupon you take to your broker, Merrill Lynch or whatever. And then you can buy corporate bonds or corporate shares or whatever. I mean, and then you never borrow again. All right. You're monetizing the debt.

Yes. all right, but that money can only be used domestically and it would create jobs and it's the only way out. But instead, what these people are doing is they want to default, wipe out all the pension funds and everything else, go get war so we can blame this. I mean, inflation started rising. You had Biden's calling it Putin's inflation, you know. you put in COVID and you lock down people. You know, I got emails from farmers. They couldn't get 30, and it killed 30,000 chickens because they couldn't,

nobody was there with the truck to even take them to market. Everybody's locked down. You know, these people had no idea when you do that, what happens economically? They just don't. And I mean, if you're on the train in Germany and they'd say, okay, fine, we're coming to Berlin, you've got to put your mask on. After the train leaves Berlin, okay, you can take it off now. I mean, you have every little mayor with their thiefdom, you know, oh, yes, you should wear a mask. Oh, you should do this.

There's no coherent anything. So unfortunately, they are going to choose the war option to get rid of the debt. I don't have anything. They will default on it like they've always done and or monetize it out. But they're not interested in the people, the economy, our countries. even the migration crisis. I actually had the mandate from Hong Kong back in 97 because they knew I knew the Australian government.

And I met with the former Prime Minister down there, Paul Keating. And literally I had a blank check. I could have paid off Australia's national debt. They wanted to buy an island? No. I said, well, okay, fine, let them come in. We'll take the upper left-hand corner of Australia where nobody's at. No. Everything was no, no, no. And I finally said to him, I said, what is this, racist? You know, it just made no sense. And he said, no. He said, they are fleeing communism.

And if we let them come into Australia, they would vote conservative and he was a labor government. that's what this is all about you know um letting in all these people through the southern border they're trying to they think that they will be able to change the politics of our countries so that they can retain power um here i'll give you i mean you've got camilla and her vice president oh free health care for for migrants all right they're giving these people more than what they would than somebody that's worked the entire life on social security gets and you don't get all the health care i mean this is just absurd um and everybody's in the i state's very concerned that um Biden will basically grant them

citizenship so they can all vote uh before the election and he's already stepped down he may resign in September to let Camilla look like she's running the country, but only after he does an executive order to give him citizenship. I mean, there's nothing that is beneficial to the people, to the country. This is all about personal power. It's party politics. and I mean, I have friends in Germany won't even allow their 13-year-old daughter

to walk two blocks out to the bus station anymore. I mean, you can look at history, and history does give us a glimpse of what happens. You can look at the Roman Emperor Valer, you know, Valen, from 364 AD. The costs were coming because of the Huns were, coming in, they asked to be able to come into the Roman Empire. So he let them cross the border. Then he thought, okay, fine, I'll use them for my army and train them in Roman tactics.

And they go, gee, thanks a lot. What did they do? They then turned on the Romans. Valens basically was killed in the battle. It's so bad that his body was never even found. you know, you're bringing in people a completely different culture. They're not there to become Roman per se. When I was meeting with the people that were creating the EU, they were basically lying about that. Oh, you know, one currency, everybody will pay a single interest rate. And I can tell you, it was coal, who would,

wouldn't allow the German people to vote. So what he did, he unilaterally took Germany into the into the euro. And because he did that, he knew that, and I think even publicly he stated before he died, that he would have lost the election seven to one if he let the German people vote on it. So what he did was he said, you cannot consolidate the debt into a national debt for Europe. And each country had to retain their own. And I warned them. I said, you know, as a trader, I'm sorry. You don't understand what you're doing. Okay, fine, single currency. If every country still has its own bonds, guess what? The volatility from the currency just goes to the bond market. Not everybody's paying the same rate. I warned them. I said, the United States,

fine, we have a single currency, but 50 states pay different rates based upon their own independent, you know, credit rating. They knew that. They knew they were lying. And they told me, yeah, but we just have to get the euro through. And then we'll worry about the debt later. Okay. That was back in 1998.

Nothing's happened ever since. And probably everybody ever spoke to back then or was no longer in government. So it's, this is it. I mean, I told them, I said, you don't understand what made America great. And I said it was discrimination. Oh, how could you say that? I said, it was very fair. Whoever was the last off the boat was discriminated against until they spoke English to get a job.

So then if you ask an American, gee, what are you? I'm half Irish, half German, whatever. You know, you don't really see that so much in Europe. I mean, sure, there's always exceptions, but I mean, the whole key is the single language. Once everybody spoke to single language, the next generation all went to school together, and they all intermarried. Same thing in Canada. So it's the language, and I said, that's basically what happened. So you're trying to compete with the United States, but you've got all these places with different cultures, different languages, different languages.

and you won't even consolidate the debt. And that's why Maggie kept, you know, Britain out. Or wanted to. And wisely so. You know? And wisely so. Absolutely. And why they got rid of her too, by the way.

Yes, they did. I know. Anyway, this is where I, I, well, first of all, can I say thank you? I mean, you've given us lots and lots to think about. But what I think I'm going to do now is I'm going to hand over to Alex, because I'm sure there's going to be, I've asked my questions, but I'm sure there's going to be other questions that other people will ask. So if you could just stay there a moment and we'll see what Alex has to buzz on.

Yeah, yeah, we got quite a few questions. First, a comment from Zoran, which says, this must be the best collab you have done so far. Seeing Martin Armstrong on this channel is something else. Awesome. Thank you for that, Zoron. Sparky says Martin, let me pull it up here. Martin, would you say that as bad as government's understanding of economics was in the 1980s,

that it's exponentially worse now? Oh, much more so. I mean, back in the 80s, I actually would sit down and have intelligent conversations with various heads of state, Maggie, Reagan, etc. I don't know one leader today in any country that I would even want to sit down and have a drink with. I mean, it's appalling. I mean, just look at them all. I mean, is there anybody that has common sense about anything?

Like I said before, when I was in the vetting process, something changed in 1999. And ever since then, they want basically the stupid leader so that the bureaucracies can do what they want, like the Byzantine Empire. And this seems to be a global contagion. You know, probably really the two smartest guys out there is probably Zengen and Putin. It's, I don't know. I mean, everywhere else, I think, where they have to do this. election thing and it's just gotten really bad, really, really bad. Tish M. asks question, any idea what the U.S. regime's debt really is? We know it's not the published

35, $35 billion, $35 trillion actually is what Tish wants to say. It's, well, you have, you know, interagency debts back and forth. Trillions of dollars are missing from the from the Pentagon. I don't think anybody really knows. But a lot of it, this goes back to economic theory where they say, oh, you know, the debt, before 1971 and the failure of Breton, Bretton Woods, if you had a hundred-dollar e-bond and he went to the bank and he said, gee, would you lend me $25 on it? The answer was no, because it was illegal. That's why they had the theory. It was less inflationary to borrow than to print because it was not money.

After 71, debt became money that just paid interest. You want to trade gold futures or anything by T bills, you post that as collateral. Couldn't do that before 71. So, you know, people look at the central banks. Central banks are not the big problem. It's the, it's the, the treasuries that are issuing this debt. Like you said, $34 trillion. That's far more than what the Federal Reserve has.

And it's the, probably the real number is maybe even closer to 50. Nobody really knows. but because it's all intertwined back and forth. And the other real problem is that because the debt is now international, 70% of the interest went overseas. So the interest, oh, you know, we borrow, it's going to stimulate the domestic economy. It did not.

You know, that's how China, Russia, Japan, they all rose. from the ashes. They made a ton of money, basically selling to the United States and on the debt. Right. Sparky says, Martin, do we not have panics any longer, such as the panic of 1837? Are they called something different now? Surely a misleading euphemism hasn't been employed. No, there will still be panics. Like the panic of 1837 was, suddenly when people have a lack of confidence in government, we're reaching that point. And I think between here and what our computer shows,

it will be 2032, this Republican forms of government that we have now will not exist. This is a standard cycle. It takes maybe 300 years to go through. throw it, but last time we went against monarchy. When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, it was a debt crisis. All the cities opened the gates. He didn't have to fight his way to Rome.

The Senate fled to Asia, all right? And the people cheered him. Why? Because there was a debt crisis. All right. And mostly the senators were the money lenders. And if you bought a house and you'd say you paid $100,000, pounds for the house and now it's only worth 50 you couldn't just walk away and say okay fine it's yours no they

took the house back you still now owe the other 50 all right if you couldn't pay that they took your children and sold them into slavery it was a little bit of a different debt crisis so when seizure crossed the rubicon cicero unfortunately a lot of our heads of state believe cicero was was was was, you know, objective. Cicero was an oligarch. He was part of the people there with the Senate. Caesar was not this ruthless dictator that he tried to present. Probably the best example of that is before the Romans used the moon calendar.

They knew it was off from the sun calendar. So the high priest had the disarm. discretion to add in the leap days. So because it was discretionary, the politicians would bribe him and say, we don't want to go to an election right now. Give us a couple months. So when Caesar crossed the Rubicon was January 10th, it should have been winter, but it was summer. He goes in, he takes the position of high priest. He creates the Julian calendar. eliminated the discretion. And, you know, basically that was, that was it. He says not, you know, knock off this corruption anymore. I mean, when you're corrupting, you know, the priesthood,

I mean, that's how bad the republic really was. And people have to understand, republics are the most corrupt form of government, period. It's, you can't bribe a monarch, You can't bribe a dictator, but you can bribe everybody that's in Parliament or Congress. So Mr. Muggey asks, Mr. Armstrong, I've read that that notably the U.S. does not have a sovereign wealth fund because it is only sovereign in treaties and defense. And all its wealth is located within the Federal Reserve. Any truth to this? Yes, actually, back in the 90s, I would. was called in to create a sovereign wealth fund for the country to convert Social Security into a wealth fund. And I did. I set out how it would work. We basically people take in their

track records and we allocated money according to their performance. The Democrats would not vote for it. And I argued with them. I said, you know, they wanted to be able to change the fund managers if they got back in power. I said, I don't care who, what the guy voted for, or even if he didn't vote. It's his track record that we make decisions on. That's the problem with politics. What do I get out of it?

And, you know, even back in 85 when I wrote that letter to Reagan, I was told back then, oh, you went out of committee. all right, you'll never be called again. I said, I don't care. This is just a dog of pony show. But because I did that, then after that, they always,

everybody wanted to call me in because they knew I was the independent one. It's just Washington, I mean, I've dealt with governments around the world. They're all the same. I don't see any difference. A government will always act in its own self-interest first. period. And you can read Plato's Republic. There's a debate in there between Thrasimachus and Socrates. And Thrasimachus says justice is the same regardless of the form of government you have. If it's a monarchy, aristocrat, dictatorship, democracy. He says it will always be justice is the will of those in power.

And he's correct. I mean, just look at what they're doing to Trump. They haven't done something like that to anybody ever, you know. I mean, a lot of people don't even understand that it's like saying, okay, fine, I go to the bank. I want to get a mortgage on my house. I think it's worth a million pounds. The bank goes, okay, fine, we'll give you $250.

All right. And they say, oh, well, that was a fraud because it was really only worth $250. You know, $500. Well, the bank, you know, even in Trump's case, we're not, he paid his loans. We have our own independent people that value the property. They don't care about that. We think it was worth this.

So that's a fraud because you overvalued it. You know, it's, this is politics. You know, it's horrible. But this is unfortunately what's, I think when they, Honestly, when they charged Trump, that was a huge mistake in the United States because a lot of people then began to see that the judiciary itself is corrupt. Whereas before, I don't think anybody really looked at that. They thought the law was the law. Now they're beginning to say the law isn't the law.

It's whatever somebody says it is. It's gotten out of hand. You have that one judge in New York. or he puts a gag order on Trump. You can't talk about anything in the case. But the other people that testify against them, he didn't put a gag order on. A gag order to protect the jury is supposed to be on both sides. Not one side.

I mean, you just can't make up this stuff. Fiona Wieland asks, Mr. Armstrong, do you think 401K and 403B retirement plans are in danger too? Thank you for all your effort. Thank you, Alex Alexander, for bringing Martin. Unfortunately, yes. Like I said, there are no rules when it comes to government. They can seize them all and basically say you have to be in government bonds. Look at most of your pension funds in Europe.

By law, they have to have government bonds. Even though they went negative and it's just, Social Security, States is 100% government bonds. So the government knows that if they default, they're going to have people running up to the gates of the White House with pitchforks. All right. So they will do whatever they need to do in advance to try and prevent that. That's what war is about. I would be concerned about 401ks, things of that nature. And you have to understand that even when Roosevelt confiscated the gold, he did so from the banks and institutions. He did not send people knocking on every door,

give me the gold that's in your sock drawer. All right, that's why so many $20 gold pieces have survived, et cetera. Whatever was in the banks, okay, you will turn them over. If they don't turn them over, they lose their license. I also had a friend who was an executive vice president, one of the major newspapers in New York. And he told me how mainstream media actually works.

He said, you get a call from the government. And they'll say, we appreciate you spin this this way or that way or even kill it the story. If you don't, they come after you personally, tax evasion, things of that nature. Not the newspaper, the journalist. I mean, look, the guy that was in L.A. that Snowden initially went to suddenly drives himself into a tree. and then he ends up giving it to the Guardian outside the United States. This is just the way it is, unfortunately.

I mean, you can Google on, it's on Wikipedia. They declassified Project Northwoods. And that was a proposal submitted to President Kennedy, which he rejected. And the idea was to kill Americans and blame it on Cuba to justify an invasion. I mean, it's been declassified, black and white. There is nothing but nothing they will not do to further their own agenda, period. Here's a question from locals from TAG DIRB.

How has the trillions injected into money markets affected now? national debt or inflation in America? Well, it all didn't necessarily go into America. A lot of it went off around the world, but mainly because the dollar is also the reserve currency. So, you know, other central banks needed to, you know, like I said, trying to just dump $53 billion in the first quarter. But that is basically how they've gotten away with things up to this point in time.

But you're coming to the point when people will not buy the new debt. That's when it comes crashing down. It's not a particular debt level percentage of GDP or all that sort of thing. even, you know, people that come up with this stuff, oh, interest rates up, stock market down, total nonsense. The stock market's never peaked with the same level of interest rates twice. What it is is very simple. It's expectation versus the interest rate.

If you think the stock market will double next year, you'll pay 20% interest. But if you don't think it's going to go up 1%, you won't pay one. You know, it's, you know, that's what Europe, I warn them, lowering interest rates to negative is not going to work. And you're going to trap yourself, which they did. It went negative in 2014. You know, it's all these people only look at one side of the coin. And, you know, they also tell people, oh, save. and then when you retire, you'll be able to live off the interest, but then you take the interest to negative.

What are you doing to all the retired people? I mean, it's always about borrowing, borrowing, borrowing. And they only look at one side of the coin. Do you have time for three more questions? Okay, go ahead. Is that cool? Okay, great. From Tish, question, does the globe now finally regard the U.S. regime as an irresponsibility.

loser holding so much debt, it has absolutely no idea or plan to pay it off? I don't know if that's necessarily correct. I think every government in Western society is in the same boat. Nobody's paying off any debt. The whole West is in this Ponzi scheme. It's not just the United States. And we say we're all we're still paying interest on World War II debt. It was war that, you know, a Vietnam war, which broke Breton Woods.

But this is why a lot of Europe once, you know, they didn't consolidate the debt. The interest rates vary according to the, you know, belief of each country. So it's just, you know, this is a global problem. It's not just the United States. The U.S. is definitely the biggest one and captures a lot of the attention. But this is a systemic problem from Japan will probably be the first to go down. Europe, Asia, they're all in the same boat, all of them. Sophisticated caveman asks Martin, short of putting a cabin up in the woods,

What sort of skills or resources can us working folk develop to traverse this crisis? Well, I do think that anything in the line of physical labor type thing, and that could be from construction to cutting hair to whatever, those are not things you're going to be able to do on Amazon. All right. Amazon did put a lot of, you know, local businesses out of a business, you know, camera shops, things of this nature. You know, I do think that, you know, having skills in programming is for the future is going to be, you know, important. But we're going to have to have a big shakeup.

And our computer is projecting that starting in 2032. And then we get a new form of government. Hopefully, I would like to see it more of a direct democracy. I mean, they tell us we live in a democracy, and that's the biggest propaganda I think I've ever heard. Back in the Vietnam days, you were 18 years old. You're old enough to go and die for your country. you weren't old enough to have a drink and you certainly couldn't vote.

But that's democracy. You had no right to say anything. And if you didn't show up, you went to prison. So do they ask us, shall we go to war against Russia? No. We're never asked anything. This is a republic, a representative. And these people basically make the decisions for us,

no different than like a monarchy or anything else. There's no difference. Jonathan asks, Mr. Armstrong, are we in a new uranium bull market? Will we see a squeeze in uranium like 2007? Eventually, yes, I think. But the whole climate change thing is it's more of a political agenda for the United Nations. they've been the ones pushing this because the argument is that no single country can do this and it's going to take a global leader.

So UN is pushing that, the same thing with the Who, that they should be able to call the shots for pandemics and everybody else should just kneel down and kiss their ring or something. So, I mean, this is this globalist idea. And I think, you know, shutting down a lot of the fossil fuel side is definitely creating difference. I think this shift towards what you're looking at with nuclear power. But you can go on our site and Google basically. that question of nuclear power. And John McCain, who was really the godfather of neocons in America, he's dead now.

But he is the one that actually first proposed climate change. I had nothing to do with the planet, nothing to do with anything. It was to push nuclear power on Europe to cut Russia, off from making any money selling energy. You know, the whole thing with Obama going into Syria was about a pipeline. What you saw in Nigeria, that they were the test case for the digital currencies

because they blew up the pipeline, the Nord Stream pipeline. They promised Europe that they would build at American taxpayer cost a pipeline. pipeline from Nigeria all the way up to Europe because they couldn't get it through Syria. And then Niger goes into revolt. And the pipeline had to go through Niger and that stops that one. So, I mean, this has been the whole idea of nuclear power. You can look at it, probably Google it, maybe in other places too.

It was first proposed by John McCain under the label. of climate change. To, oh, we have to reduce the CO2, et cetera. It had nothing to do with the planet. This was all geopolitical stuff against Russia. Well said. Sparky says, Martin, you have a solution. Elegant.

It's in its simplicity. I like it. The change in direction can turn things around quicker than many can imagine because it encourages people to bank on the future. So Sparky likes your suggestion. Mr. Armstrong, thank you very much for joining us. NM says thank you for having Martin on a brilliant episode.

We agree with that. Sparky says, Martin, bring the church committee back to Congress. Thank you. Thank you very much, Martin. Thank you. Thank you very much. Martin Armstrong. Armstrong economics is the site. I have that in the description box down below, and I will also add it as a pit comment. Thank you very much, the excellent Martin Armstrong. Thank you for inviting me. We have to enlighten the world if they understand the truth because mainstream media is not doing it.

Absolutely. Thank you very much. Well, thank you. Armstrong. Take care. Goodbye. Okay. Fantastic show, Alexander.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah, very fascinating, fascinating stuff. Let's wrap up the questions. You ready, Alexander? Yeah, absolutely, you know. Yeah, all right. Sparky says, off-topic clarification.

I referred to reports retarded Oswald having a bike. Retarded Arswald is a common crook's nickname. Wasn't talking about Lee Harvey Oswald instead. Trump's would be assessing. Thank you, Sparky for that. Sparky We got that one about the 1980s

One second Alexander From Matthew Alexander Any thoughts on how likely World War III is given that nuclear weapons Seemed to be restraining it I think without those weapons Ukraine is World War III

Well I quite agree with that I think if we were in the world without nuclear weapons By now we would certainly have armed clashes of unparalleled ferocity between the nuclear powers. I think the problem is that the threshold,

the fear of their use has greatly diminished in the West, either because they don't believe the Russians or the Chinese or whoever will use nuclear weapons or because they don't care any longer. They're convinced that nuclear weapons

are not as dangerous as people say. and they imagine that if there is a nuclear war, or at least nuclear weapons are used, it will somehow be contained or restricted geographically, and that, you know, it won't lead to, you know, the sort of terrible consequences that we always assumed it would. I think both views are wrong, and I think there are people in the militaries who understand that, and I think that is a restraint. But how long it will continue for, I don't know.

Tish M says decentralized, de-dollarized, demilitarized, demilitarized, the U.S. for that. Cruz, welcome to the Duran community. Sparky asks Martin, are there equities located in BRICS countries which trade on U.S. markets that U.S. investors might use to offset their vulnerable U.S. equities? I can't answer that question. That is a question for Martin. I wouldn't be able to answer that question.

I missed it. Yeah. Hopefully, Martin, we'll send this off to Martin maybe he posts us on his blog. Thank you, Sparky, for that. DK, thank you for that super sticker. Cruz says, could you please have Richard Werner on to talk about Japan? He has a Y teacher. Yeah.

We'll look into that. Elza says, thanks for the guest. Gentlemen, I like him. Let's see. Sparky says, when there's a lack of leadership at the top, everyone below them starts working their own agendas, whether they be at cross-purposes with one another or not. I think this is completely true. Having worked in various organizations, I can say that the fish rots from the head down. If the leadership isn't there, it's exactly, as you say,

the whole organisation gradually starts to fall apart. However well-organized, initially it is, but you're absolutely right. Zareal says back in 2012, a German MOP said that not only gas was there, but also seldom minerals and lithium as well as topsoil. She got pushed out for revealing. Imagine talking about Crimea.

Absolutely, yeah. Let's see. Zareal says, so Martin, how do we the people get out of this? How do we get out of this? I'd be very interested to know because he doesn't seem to think that we are actually. I mean, if I have understood this correctly, I think he basically thinks that what's coming is going to happen and that there really isn't any prospect of things changing because politically

the system is so congealed and the level of political leadership is so poor that there is really little prospect and that we just have to go through this and come out the, other side and i'm afraid he may be right about that i mean we have to be um honest with ourselves we could go on trying we can try to educate people we can put things out to people so that they make correct decisions or we believe to be correct decisions in elections but we have to face the possibility that as i said things will eventually have to sort themselves out on the other side of whatever calamity is coming. The point is that they do.

That is the other thing that perhaps we didn't talk about so much over the course of the program. But the iron law of historical history is that except for very exceptional periods, when you do get through to the other side, recovery tends to be fast. Tish M asks, will BlackRock just write off their failed investment

in Project Ukraine. Well, they might eventually, but they will fight, Tuss and claw, preserve it in some form. And one of the things they're going to do is if Ukraine falls, they'll come after the Russian assets.

Be ready for that. It's coming. Remember what Martin said. Remember what Martin said, governments are not going to be deterred. by simple things like legal laws and contracts and things like that. It's about power. Sparky says,

Martin, am I right in saying that your solution depends a lot on if the U.S. government sins no more borrowing wise? I think that is exactly what the point was. And I think he doesn't believe that it would. So he proposes these solutions in the knowledge that the solution will not be accepted. Yeah, exactly right, Sparky. Sir Mug's game asks Alex,

dead serious and important question for you in Russia, your recent undisclosed location. Could you get Afredo Espresso Sgetto, the greatest Greek invention of all time? If yes, fantastic, if no, then I'm guttered. I couldn't find one, Sir Muz game, but I do agree with you that Fredo Espresso, I think Alexander would agree as well as one of the greatest.

Oh, absolutely, yeah. Oh, absolutely, yeah. Yes. Let's see. Jeffrey, welcome to the Duran community. William says, I think most Western elites are blithely unaware of the geopolitical and economic turmoil and tectonic shifts they've irretrievably set in motion. This is completely true. I mean, look at the present occupant at the White House.

Look at his anointed successor. Do they seem to be the kind of people? who understand and think about these things. Look at the people around them. Yeah, well said. Elza says, are Trump in advance probably too smart to win the U.S. election? I think that is a good question, actually. I don't know.

Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope. Alexander asks, I am, or says I am a Roman empire enthusiast, and other enthusiasts find it shocking, how similar. The current state of the West resembles the Roman Empire in decline. It's true enough, actually. The Roman Empire was the original West. Just saying, I mean, what is the West is a complete product of it? Every Western civilization, Western society, originates, has its genesis within the Roman Empire.

And you can see it in everything. You can see it in our architecture, in our writing systems, in our literature, and everything that you can think of. I mean, if you're talking about the United States, they take it there to extreme. They have a Senate, they have a capital, they have all of those things. So, yes, I think that there are very, very disturbing parallels action. from Rumble, Ken Media Reader asks Martin, Martin, world development has accelerated on international banking euro dollars.

Does anyone have even a sense of the scale of the ledger money credit in the world? I believe Martin kind of answered that, but Alexander? He did answer that. And I think the short answer is that they don't. I mean, there's some people who have a sense of it. But if you're talking about people in government, absolutely they do not. Yeah, D.K., thank you for that super sticker. Sir Mugge's game says,

Caesar crossed the Rubicon. The Collective West have jumped a shark-filled Rubicon. That takes a lot of talent. Sure enough. Eric Hatchet says, here's some fake money. Thank you, Eric, for that. Robert Dish, thank you for joining the drag community. Thank you, Robert.

Sir Mug's game says that lovable old rogue Gonzalo Lira must be looking down with a smile from ear to ear. Karma can be a bitch. Yeah, yeah. Thank you for that, Sir Muz game. Sparky says, bring back the church committee. I read that. Robert, thank you for that super chat.

Alexander says, welcome, Mr. Armstrong. Thank you for that, Alexander. Sir Mug's game says, Alex's is smelling of Musk being curated to replace Rupert Murdoch. That is when the adversary finally holds. holds his nose and comes to claim him. Is Musk going to replace Murdoch, Alexander? That is a very good question.

I think that they are very different people. I should say this. I've never met Rupert Murdoch. I want to make this absolutely sure. I've never met Elon Musk. I appeared on a podcast with him, but I never exchanged words with him. But I know a bit about Rupert Murdoch,

because I know people who've worked for him. more I have known people who work for him. I've heard descriptions of how he works and the kind of personality he is. I think he's a very, very different person from Elon Musk. And I think he's a much more ideological person in some ways than Elon Musk is,

despite the fact that, you know, Murdoch is very much a businessman as well. So I think that it, they will be different. Murdoch was first and foremost a newspaper, Musk is an industrialist and an engineer, and that is a completely different background. So if Musk does achieve the kind of media importance that Murdoch has,

it will be a completely different media, in a completely different media environment and political environment as well. And maybe a more interesting industrial. diversified one. Vladimir Rose has brilliant discussion. Thank you gentlemen for inviting Mr. Armstrong. Thank you for that. SW-2205 says,

what is the current state of the relationship between Israel and China? Not good, which is an important point to make because historically it had been very good, but no longer, not anymore, if you follow the Chinese media, you can see this. and the latest exchanges, the most recent exchanges between the Chinese government,

between Wang Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister and the Israeli Foreign Minister. And there haven't been any of those now for quite a few months, by the way, were very, very contentious. GL1416 says, why are policy papers like extending Russia from Randorp public? Why aren't these people just hired by the government or something like that? because they need to be circulated within the wider neocon community, which is very big, and not all of which works in government. So that's why. The neocon think tank community is enormous.

And it generates an enormous amount of material, including brand corporation reports like this. And of course, they're widely exchanged and discussed and circulated. amongst each other. And of course, the point is that without being secret exactly, their existence either is not widely publicized. So if you're outside this community, more likely than not, you won't know about them. Yeah.

Summer of 1970 says, great show. Thanks. Sparky says, I know that there are BRICS equities which trade on US markets. I thought it would be worthwhile info for Martin to expound on this subject. It would be very interesting for him to expound on the subject. I can't. I mean, that's his world, not mine.

Tabernic is, yeah, expertise. Yeah. Tabardac says, Neo-colonies won't be allowed to heal and move on. We are scorching earth in order to drag everyone else to our level. They have lost the peace already. I agree with that. Sparky says,

But I thought that Hawaiian pizza was the greatest Greek invention of all time. invented by a Greek immigrant in Canada. That is true. I didn't know that. You know, but none of this. Sir Muzgame says, right, Greece needs to send 100 baristas ASAP to that place. Maybe Furiosa Zakharova would become slightly less pissed off with everything the Greeks say and do. Thank you, Sir Mugsgate for that.

And on Odyssey, EU Tech Health says, do you think that you? USDT and USDC is holding up the dollar with hundreds of billions now invested. I'm not sure how it's done. And again, this is Martin Armstrong. I don't think so. I don't think so now. I agree with that. I would say I don't think so.

But yeah, that's an interesting question. All right, Alexander, any final thoughts as I check over everything? Give one last look. I think it was a great program. And as I see, he does have an incredible reach of understanding of this. And he's absolutely right. You know, what he says, that people throughout history, history changes, technology changes,

but people remain people. They respond to events in very human ways. And that's why patterns tend to repeat themselves. It's absolutely true. It's exactly, if you follow history closely, that's what you see, that famous expression. that there's nothing new under the sun, nothing completely new under the sun,

certainly in terms of human behavior, there isn't. Yeah, and Sir Mug's Game says, Alex, I thought you were really enjoying your Fredo back in Cyprus. I'm sure he is. That's correct, Sir Muzgame. I miss it. People must stop talking about these things

because I'm not able to enjoy them in London. You won't find it anywhere in London, by the way. It's an easy drink to me. which is weird. I know. I know. It is. Absolutely.

But nobody does it. Nobody does it properly. Go cafe. You'll never find it. Yeah. Agreed. All right. That is the stream.

Once again, Armstrong Economics. I will have that link as a pin comment. It is in the description box down below. Thank you to everyone that joined us on Rockfin, Odyssey, Rumble, YouTube, and the duran. dot locals.com. Tom Sparky asks, what about the U.S. regime changing in Bangladesh? Do you have any thoughts on that, Alexander? And we'll close out the show.

Yeah, I mean, I think you've just answered the question. I think it is a regime change. I mean, I'm not here to defend the government, the prime minister who's been ousted. But clearly, one of the major reasons, factors here is that she did have a desire to bring relations between Bangladesh and China, closer and she was quite open to the bricks and she had a long-standing relationship uh if she positioned herself as being in somebody who wanted a more independent policy for bangladesh and clearly the u.s and a section of the military in bangladesh didn't like that and didn't like her and they and they overthrew her that is not in any way to say that she was not

probably, you know, a leader who failed in many things. I don't know enough about that. But I've no doubt at all that there was a US hand in it. And that's all I can say about it. Thank you to our moderators. Tish M. Angry Warhawk, Zaryel T. Jordan. Thank you for everything you do in moderating the chat. I think I got everyone that was moderating today.

All right, Alexander. That's a wrap. That's us. So today. Take care, everybody. Take care.