Economic News

Leer en Español Merchandise exports from Asia (excluding Japan) fell 5.3% year on year in 2023, the sharpest decline since 2015. This was chiefly due to a downturn in the global electronics cycle—electronics are the region’s key export—as firms ran down the large inventories they had accumulated during the pandemic rather than making new purchases. But in recent months the tide has turned, and our Consensus is for further rises in exports from Asia in coming quarters. AI boom helps exports from Asia to recover After many months of continuous contractions, goods exports from Asia finally returned to growth in Q4 2023 in many of the region’s key exporters, such as China, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. And this improvement has continued this year, with export readings often beating the market forecast; Taiwan’s March exports growth was more than double analysts’ forecasts, for instance. The gradual exhaustion of the electronics destocking cycle and the surge in demand for AI applications around the world is buoying demand for the region’s IT exports—particularly for semiconductors, the backbone of the AI industry. Upgrades to the market forecast Since the end of last year, our Consensus for growth of goods exports from Asia (excluding Japan) in 2024 and 2025 has roughly doubled to 2.2% and 4.4%, respectively, with further upgrades possible in the months ahead. These readings would be higher still were it not for China, whose export growth is set to be muted due to Western trade and tech restrictions, plus overcapacity in some sectors weighing on export prices. Risks to the outlook for exports from Asia are elevated Not everything will be plain sailing for exports from Asia in the coming years. As well as the aforementioned difficulties faced by China, rising protectionism in the West more generally is a key risk to the region as a whole. If Donald Trump clinches the U.S. presidency, he has threatened to jack up tariffs not just on China but also on the wider world, which could rewire the global trade environment—and not in Asia’s favor. Adding to this, the EU is also aiming to build greater autonomy in key strategic sectors such as electric batteries and microchips. And in the Middle East, conflict could further disrupt trade flows; shipping via the Red Sea has already been interrupted this year by Houthi attacks.   Insight from our panelists Sonal Varma and Si Ying Toh, research analysts at Nomura, spoke about the upbeat economic outlook for the region: “The most important factor underpinning our positive cyclical view is the turn in the goods cycle, which we believe is transitioning from a recovery to an expansionary phase. This is mainly led by semiconductors, due to the end of the inventory correction phase and rising AI demand. As such, the benefits should percolate largely to the open,tech-oriented economies in the region.” On the impact of Trump’s proposed 60% tariff on Chinese imports, Goldman Sachs analysts said: “The 2018-19 trade war did slow China’s economic growth, in our view. We estimated a cumulative drag of 0.65pp on the level of GDP in China through channels such as lower exports, increased uncertainty, and tighter financial conditions. If we were to linearly extrapolate our estimates but adjust for the now-smaller share of Chinese exports that go directly to the US, then a 60% tariff on Chinese goods would reduce China’s real GDP by around 2pp.” Our latest analysis Argentina’s exports rose in March. Inflation in France fell in March.  

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/BBC-Fakes-News.mp4   The BBC has shown the world what is really taking place in Mainstream Media and even Wikipedia, which nobody should donate 10 cents to, yet another FAKE NEWS organization edited by the government. We saw it with COVID-19, where the government told social media to cancel people. Others are being debanked because the government does not like what they say. What the BBC has done with their doctoring a speech by Trump that aired a week before the 2024 presidential election, made him appear to encourage the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. This was deliberate FAKE NEWS in an attempt to influence the election. I believe this a CRIME!! There is a statute (18 U.S.C. § 371) that makes it a crime to conspire to impair or obstruct a lawful function of the government through deceit. That would include an election. The press hides behind the First Amendment but they have turned on its head. It is NOT free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater to start a stamped when there is no fire. The First Amendment protects even false, misleading, or partisan speech. However, the Supreme Court has set an incredibly high bar for punishing speech, especially speech about public figures and political matters. For a journalist to be held legally liable for false statements, the plaintiff (or prosecutor) would generally need to prove “actual malice”—that the journalist knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The facts of this case warrant an FBI investigate of the journalist and the BBC deliberately editing this video shows “actual malice” this was intentional and not a mistake. All their emails should be preserved and if there was any partisan connection and deliberate “malace” the BBC should be criminally charged. This is the only way to start cleaning up the press. While there’s no “fake news statute,” there are existing laws that could potentially apply in specific, egregious circumstances which has been shown here by the BBC. This is the area where prosecutors have recently tested the legal limits. The theory is that publishing a story of value to a campaign, when coordinated with that campaign, can be considered an illegal, unreported campaign contribution.  The Michael Sussmann Case (2021) comes to mind. A lawyer was acquitted, but the special counsel argued he lied to the FBI while acting on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. In his defense, he successfully argued that the meeting with the FBI was brief and focused on the substance of the data, not on who Sussmann’s clients were, and that the FBI agent’s memory of the specific statement was not sufficiently reliable. Thus, the jury found him not guilty. The legal theory was that his lie was a “thing of value” to the campaign, making it a potential campaign finance violation. My advice is that this precedent can apply to a journalist. If a journalist coordinated directly with a political campaign to deliberately publish a known false story as the BBC has done here, the value of that “hit piece” (the advertising space and the credibility of the news outlet) could be construed as an illegal, unreported in-kind contribution. This is a complex and legally uncertain area, but it’s the one most actively explored by prosecutors. Someone in Congress needs to launch this against the BBC NOW!!!!! Since (18 U.S.C. § 371) makes it a crime to conspire to impair or obstruct a lawful function of the government through deceit, if a journalist conspired with others (like a foreign government or a campaign) to deliberately publish disinformation with the specific intent to disrupt the election process—a lawful government function—this law could potentially be invoked. This would be an extremely aggressive and rare use of the statute but I believe it properly falls within its four corners. Then there is the catch-all statue. Laws against wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) prohibit using interstate communications to execute a “scheme to defraud.” This squarely falls within a broadcast. A court would have to find that the public has a “property right” in a fair and honest election, and that the fake news scheme sought to deprive them of that right. Our property right in terms of an election is the cornerstone of everything about our civilization. If there is no “free election” then there us no Republic or Democratic Process and I have been deprived of my most fundamental right of citizenship. I would argue that the BBC also conspired against my civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241. If any contact with the Democrats or someone in the Biden Administration too place, then the most direct and specific federal statute that prohibits interfering with a federal election is 18 U.S.C. § 595. “Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments.” Here is is a crime for any person employed in any administrative position by the United States, a State, or a Territory to use their official authority to interfere with, affect, or attempt to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives. Why the BBC needs to be subpoenaed instantly is that a government employee in an administrative position (this distinguishes them from elected officials or political appointees whose jobs are inherently political), so anyone in the Biden Administration, then this blows up into bigger than Watergate. Defamation Of course, there is the publishing a knowingly false statement that damages a candidate’s reputation is defamation. In the case of a public figure like a candidate, the plaintiff must prove “actual malice.” Defamation is almost always a civil offense, meaning the harmed candidate can sue the journalist or outlet for monetary damages, but the journalist is not going to jail. There are very few “criminal defamation” laws still on the books in some states, but they are rarely used and may be unconstitutional. It is

Leer en Español Merchandise exports from Asia (excluding Japan) fell 5.3% year on year in 2023, the sharpest decline since 2015. This was chiefly due to a downturn in the global electronics cycle—electronics are the region’s key export—as firms ran down the large inventories they had accumulated during the pandemic rather than making new purchases. But in recent months the tide has turned, and our Consensus is for further rises in exports from Asia in coming quarters. AI boom helps exports from Asia to recover After many months of continuous contractions, goods exports from Asia finally returned to growth in Q4 2023 in many of the region’s key exporters, such as China, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. And this improvement has continued this year, with export readings often beating the market forecast; Taiwan’s March exports growth was more than double analysts’ forecasts, for instance. The gradual exhaustion of the electronics destocking cycle and the surge in demand for AI applications around the world is buoying demand for the region’s IT exports—particularly for semiconductors, the backbone of the AI industry. Upgrades to the market forecast Since the end of last year, our Consensus for growth of goods exports from Asia (excluding Japan) in 2024 and 2025 has roughly doubled to 2.2% and 4.4%, respectively, with further upgrades possible in the months ahead. These readings would be higher still were it not for China, whose export growth is set to be muted due to Western trade and tech restrictions, plus overcapacity in some sectors weighing on export prices. Risks to the outlook for exports from Asia are elevated Not everything will be plain sailing for exports from Asia in the coming years. As well as the aforementioned difficulties faced by China, rising protectionism in the West more generally is a key risk to the region as a whole. If Donald Trump clinches the U.S. presidency, he has threatened to jack up tariffs not just on China but also on the wider world, which could rewire the global trade environment—and not in Asia’s favor. Adding to this, the EU is also aiming to build greater autonomy in key strategic sectors such as electric batteries and microchips. And in the Middle East, conflict could further disrupt trade flows; shipping via the Red Sea has already been interrupted this year by Houthi attacks.   Insight from our panelists Sonal Varma and Si Ying Toh, research analysts at Nomura, spoke about the upbeat economic outlook for the region: “The most important factor underpinning our positive cyclical view is the turn in the goods cycle, which we believe is transitioning from a recovery to an expansionary phase. This is mainly led by semiconductors, due to the end of the inventory correction phase and rising AI demand. As such, the benefits should percolate largely to the open,tech-oriented economies in the region.” On the impact of Trump’s proposed 60% tariff on Chinese imports, Goldman Sachs analysts said: “The 2018-19 trade war did slow China’s economic growth, in our view. We estimated a cumulative drag of 0.65pp on the level of GDP in China through channels such as lower exports, increased uncertainty, and tighter financial conditions. If we were to linearly extrapolate our estimates but adjust for the now-smaller share of Chinese exports that go directly to the US, then a 60% tariff on Chinese goods would reduce China’s real GDP by around 2pp.” Our latest analysis Argentina’s exports rose in March. Inflation in France fell in March.  

So proud to be a New Yorker! The American dream continues! Congrats, Mayor @ZohranKMamdani ???? pic.twitter.com/nvR5Zb46TI — Alex Soros (@AlexanderSoros) November 5, 2025 Alex Soros, heir to the Open Society Foundations, publicly congratulated Zohran Mamdani on securing the far left’s position in New York. “So proud to be a New Yorker! The American dream continues! Congrats, Mayor Zohran Mamdani,” Soros wrote. Zohran Mamdani is NOT an anti-establishment candidate—he is an anti-Trump and anti-American puppet installed by the billionaire globalists. Neo-Marxists only want to eat the rich who do not support their causes. But first, they need to starve and confuse the masses so that they target the “rich” rather than the government. Soros paid good money to help Mamdani’s campaign, donating between $24 to $37 million on groups like DSA and Working Families Party that supported the Democratic candidate. President Donald Trump previously suggested that Alex and George Soros be charged with RICO due to their open support for violent protests across the nation, with the most recent one surrounding Palestine. “George Soros, and his Wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, all throughout the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to ‘BREATHE,’ and be FREE.” What happens when neo-Marxism combines with Islam? New York will be the test subject. Mamdani famously supported the slogan, “Globalize the intifada,” which he hailed as “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.” He supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and refuses to denounce Shira Law. “I think critiques of the state of Israel are critiques of a government, as opposed to critiques of a people and of a faith,” Mamdani said. “And my job is to represent every single New Yorker, and I will do so no matter their thoughts and opinions on Israel and Palestine, of which millions of New Yorkers have very strong views — and I’m one of them.” He is not against the Jews, like his friend Alex Soros; he is simply against all things Western. As George Soros said in 1995: “The transformation of a closed society into an open one is a systematic transformation. Practically everything has to change and there is no blueprint. What the foundations have done is to change the way the transformation is brought about. They mobilized the energies of the people in the countries concerned.” Mamdani is the puppet that will be used to lead the mobilization of globalization, starting by fueling New York’s welfare state to make the people dependent on government. George Soros has always wanted to control NYC, and now he has it in his pocket. The mayor has limited power and will not be able to implement all the lavish promises he spewed at the podium. Yet this is a big step toward converting cities and then states to destabilize the collectiveness of the United States in the hopes that its place as the world’s superpower will vanish.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/BBC-Fakes-News.mp4   The BBC has shown the world what is really taking place in Mainstream Media and even Wikipedia, which nobody should donate 10 cents to, yet another FAKE NEWS organization edited by the government. We saw it with COVID-19, where the government told social media to cancel people. Others are being debanked because the government does not like what they say. What the BBC has done with their doctoring a speech by Trump that aired a week before the 2024 presidential election, made him appear to encourage the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. This was deliberate FAKE NEWS in an attempt to influence the election. I believe this a CRIME!! There is a statute (18 U.S.C. § 371) that makes it a crime to conspire to impair or obstruct a lawful function of the government through deceit. That would include an election. The press hides behind the First Amendment but they have turned on its head. It is NOT free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater to start a stamped when there is no fire. The First Amendment protects even false, misleading, or partisan speech. However, the Supreme Court has set an incredibly high bar for punishing speech, especially speech about public figures and political matters. For a journalist to be held legally liable for false statements, the plaintiff (or prosecutor) would generally need to prove “actual malice”—that the journalist knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The facts of this case warrant an FBI investigate of the journalist and the BBC deliberately editing this video shows “actual malice” this was intentional and not a mistake. All their emails should be preserved and if there was any partisan connection and deliberate “malace” the BBC should be criminally charged. This is the only way to start cleaning up the press. While there’s no “fake news statute,” there are existing laws that could potentially apply in specific, egregious circumstances which has been shown here by the BBC. This is the area where prosecutors have recently tested the legal limits. The theory is that publishing a story of value to a campaign, when coordinated with that campaign, can be considered an illegal, unreported campaign contribution.  The Michael Sussmann Case (2021) comes to mind. A lawyer was acquitted, but the special counsel argued he lied to the FBI while acting on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. In his defense, he successfully argued that the meeting with the FBI was brief and focused on the substance of the data, not on who Sussmann’s clients were, and that the FBI agent’s memory of the specific statement was not sufficiently reliable. Thus, the jury found him not guilty. The legal theory was that his lie was a “thing of value” to the campaign, making it a potential campaign finance violation. My advice is that this precedent can apply to a journalist. If a journalist coordinated directly with a political campaign to deliberately publish a known false story as the BBC has done here, the value of that “hit piece” (the advertising space and the credibility of the news outlet) could be construed as an illegal, unreported in-kind contribution. This is a complex and legally uncertain area, but it’s the one most actively explored by prosecutors. Someone in Congress needs to launch this against the BBC NOW!!!!! Since (18 U.S.C. § 371) makes it a crime to conspire to impair or obstruct a lawful function of the government through deceit, if a journalist conspired with others (like a foreign government or a campaign) to deliberately publish disinformation with the specific intent to disrupt the election process—a lawful government function—this law could potentially be invoked. This would be an extremely aggressive and rare use of the statute but I believe it properly falls within its four corners. Then there is the catch-all statue. Laws against wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) prohibit using interstate communications to execute a “scheme to defraud.” This squarely falls within a broadcast. A court would have to find that the public has a “property right” in a fair and honest election, and that the fake news scheme sought to deprive them of that right. Our property right in terms of an election is the cornerstone of everything about our civilization. If there is no “free election” then there us no Republic or Democratic Process and I have been deprived of my most fundamental right of citizenship. I would argue that the BBC also conspired against my civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241. If any contact with the Democrats or someone in the Biden Administration too place, then the most direct and specific federal statute that prohibits interfering with a federal election is 18 U.S.C. § 595. “Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments.” Here is is a crime for any person employed in any administrative position by the United States, a State, or a Territory to use their official authority to interfere with, affect, or attempt to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives. Why the BBC needs to be subpoenaed instantly is that a government employee in an administrative position (this distinguishes them from elected officials or political appointees whose jobs are inherently political), so anyone in the Biden Administration, then this blows up into bigger than Watergate. Defamation Of course, there is the publishing a knowingly false statement that damages a candidate’s reputation is defamation. In the case of a public figure like a candidate, the plaintiff must prove “actual malice.” Defamation is almost always a civil offense, meaning the harmed candidate can sue the journalist or outlet for monetary damages, but the journalist is not going to jail. There are very few “criminal defamation” laws still on the books in some states, but they are rarely used and may be unconstitutional. It is

Leer en Español Merchandise exports from Asia (excluding Japan) fell 5.3% year on year in 2023, the sharpest decline since 2015. This was chiefly due to a downturn in the global electronics cycle—electronics are the region’s key export—as firms ran down the large inventories they had accumulated during the pandemic rather than making new purchases. But in recent months the tide has turned, and our Consensus is for further rises in exports from Asia in coming quarters. AI boom helps exports from Asia to recover After many months of continuous contractions, goods exports from Asia finally returned to growth in Q4 2023 in many of the region’s key exporters, such as China, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. And this improvement has continued this year, with export readings often beating the market forecast; Taiwan’s March exports growth was more than double analysts’ forecasts, for instance. The gradual exhaustion of the electronics destocking cycle and the surge in demand for AI applications around the world is buoying demand for the region’s IT exports—particularly for semiconductors, the backbone of the AI industry. Upgrades to the market forecast Since the end of last year, our Consensus for growth of goods exports from Asia (excluding Japan) in 2024 and 2025 has roughly doubled to 2.2% and 4.4%, respectively, with further upgrades possible in the months ahead. These readings would be higher still were it not for China, whose export growth is set to be muted due to Western trade and tech restrictions, plus overcapacity in some sectors weighing on export prices. Risks to the outlook for exports from Asia are elevated Not everything will be plain sailing for exports from Asia in the coming years. As well as the aforementioned difficulties faced by China, rising protectionism in the West more generally is a key risk to the region as a whole. If Donald Trump clinches the U.S. presidency, he has threatened to jack up tariffs not just on China but also on the wider world, which could rewire the global trade environment—and not in Asia’s favor. Adding to this, the EU is also aiming to build greater autonomy in key strategic sectors such as electric batteries and microchips. And in the Middle East, conflict could further disrupt trade flows; shipping via the Red Sea has already been interrupted this year by Houthi attacks.   Insight from our panelists Sonal Varma and Si Ying Toh, research analysts at Nomura, spoke about the upbeat economic outlook for the region: “The most important factor underpinning our positive cyclical view is the turn in the goods cycle, which we believe is transitioning from a recovery to an expansionary phase. This is mainly led by semiconductors, due to the end of the inventory correction phase and rising AI demand. As such, the benefits should percolate largely to the open,tech-oriented economies in the region.” On the impact of Trump’s proposed 60% tariff on Chinese imports, Goldman Sachs analysts said: “The 2018-19 trade war did slow China’s economic growth, in our view. We estimated a cumulative drag of 0.65pp on the level of GDP in China through channels such as lower exports, increased uncertainty, and tighter financial conditions. If we were to linearly extrapolate our estimates but adjust for the now-smaller share of Chinese exports that go directly to the US, then a 60% tariff on Chinese goods would reduce China’s real GDP by around 2pp.” Our latest analysis Argentina’s exports rose in March. Inflation in France fell in March.  

So proud to be a New Yorker! The American dream continues! Congrats, Mayor @ZohranKMamdani ???? pic.twitter.com/nvR5Zb46TI — Alex Soros (@AlexanderSoros) November 5, 2025 Alex Soros, heir to the Open Society Foundations, publicly congratulated Zohran Mamdani on securing the far left’s position in New York. “So proud to be a New Yorker! The American dream continues! Congrats, Mayor Zohran Mamdani,” Soros wrote. Zohran Mamdani is NOT an anti-establishment candidate—he is an anti-Trump and anti-American puppet installed by the billionaire globalists. Neo-Marxists only want to eat the rich who do not support their causes. But first, they need to starve and confuse the masses so that they target the “rich” rather than the government. Soros paid good money to help Mamdani’s campaign, donating between $24 to $37 million on groups like DSA and Working Families Party that supported the Democratic candidate. President Donald Trump previously suggested that Alex and George Soros be charged with RICO due to their open support for violent protests across the nation, with the most recent one surrounding Palestine. “George Soros, and his Wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, all throughout the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to ‘BREATHE,’ and be FREE.” What happens when neo-Marxism combines with Islam? New York will be the test subject. Mamdani famously supported the slogan, “Globalize the intifada,” which he hailed as “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.” He supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and refuses to denounce Shira Law. “I think critiques of the state of Israel are critiques of a government, as opposed to critiques of a people and of a faith,” Mamdani said. “And my job is to represent every single New Yorker, and I will do so no matter their thoughts and opinions on Israel and Palestine, of which millions of New Yorkers have very strong views — and I’m one of them.” He is not against the Jews, like his friend Alex Soros; he is simply against all things Western. As George Soros said in 1995: “The transformation of a closed society into an open one is a systematic transformation. Practically everything has to change and there is no blueprint. What the foundations have done is to change the way the transformation is brought about. They mobilized the energies of the people in the countries concerned.” Mamdani is the puppet that will be used to lead the mobilization of globalization, starting by fueling New York’s welfare state to make the people dependent on government. George Soros has always wanted to control NYC, and now he has it in his pocket. The mayor has limited power and will not be able to implement all the lavish promises he spewed at the podium. Yet this is a big step toward converting cities and then states to destabilize the collectiveness of the United States in the hopes that its place as the world’s superpower will vanish.

Leer en Español Merchandise exports from Asia (excluding Japan) fell 5.3% year on year in 2023, the sharpest decline since 2015. This was chiefly due to a downturn in the global electronics cycle—electronics are the region’s key export—as firms ran down the large inventories they had accumulated during the pandemic rather than making new purchases. But in recent months the tide has turned, and our Consensus is for further rises in exports from Asia in coming quarters. AI boom helps exports from Asia to recover After many months of continuous contractions, goods exports from Asia finally returned to growth in Q4 2023 in many of the region’s key exporters, such as China, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. And this improvement has continued this year, with export readings often beating the market forecast; Taiwan’s March exports growth was more than double analysts’ forecasts, for instance. The gradual exhaustion of the electronics destocking cycle and the surge in demand for AI applications around the world is buoying demand for the region’s IT exports—particularly for semiconductors, the backbone of the AI industry. Upgrades to the market forecast Since the end of last year, our Consensus for growth of goods exports from Asia (excluding Japan) in 2024 and 2025 has roughly doubled to 2.2% and 4.4%, respectively, with further upgrades possible in the months ahead. These readings would be higher still were it not for China, whose export growth is set to be muted due to Western trade and tech restrictions, plus overcapacity in some sectors weighing on export prices. Risks to the outlook for exports from Asia are elevated Not everything will be plain sailing for exports from Asia in the coming years. As well as the aforementioned difficulties faced by China, rising protectionism in the West more generally is a key risk to the region as a whole. If Donald Trump clinches the U.S. presidency, he has threatened to jack up tariffs not just on China but also on the wider world, which could rewire the global trade environment—and not in Asia’s favor. Adding to this, the EU is also aiming to build greater autonomy in key strategic sectors such as electric batteries and microchips. And in the Middle East, conflict could further disrupt trade flows; shipping via the Red Sea has already been interrupted this year by Houthi attacks.   Insight from our panelists Sonal Varma and Si Ying Toh, research analysts at Nomura, spoke about the upbeat economic outlook for the region: “The most important factor underpinning our positive cyclical view is the turn in the goods cycle, which we believe is transitioning from a recovery to an expansionary phase. This is mainly led by semiconductors, due to the end of the inventory correction phase and rising AI demand. As such, the benefits should percolate largely to the open,tech-oriented economies in the region.” On the impact of Trump’s proposed 60% tariff on Chinese imports, Goldman Sachs analysts said: “The 2018-19 trade war did slow China’s economic growth, in our view. We estimated a cumulative drag of 0.65pp on the level of GDP in China through channels such as lower exports, increased uncertainty, and tighter financial conditions. If we were to linearly extrapolate our estimates but adjust for the now-smaller share of Chinese exports that go directly to the US, then a 60% tariff on Chinese goods would reduce China’s real GDP by around 2pp.” Our latest analysis Argentina’s exports rose in March. Inflation in France fell in March.  

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/BBC-Fakes-News.mp4   The BBC has shown the world what is really taking place in Mainstream Media and even Wikipedia, which nobody should donate 10 cents to, yet another FAKE NEWS organization edited by the government. We saw it with COVID-19, where the government told social media to cancel people. Others are being debanked because the government does not like what they say. What the BBC has done with their doctoring a speech by Trump that aired a week before the 2024 presidential election, made him appear to encourage the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. This was deliberate FAKE NEWS in an attempt to influence the election. I believe this a CRIME!! There is a statute (18 U.S.C. § 371) that makes it a crime to conspire to impair or obstruct a lawful function of the government through deceit. That would include an election. The press hides behind the First Amendment but they have turned on its head. It is NOT free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater to start a stamped when there is no fire. The First Amendment protects even false, misleading, or partisan speech. However, the Supreme Court has set an incredibly high bar for punishing speech, especially speech about public figures and political matters. For a journalist to be held legally liable for false statements, the plaintiff (or prosecutor) would generally need to prove “actual malice”—that the journalist knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The facts of this case warrant an FBI investigate of the journalist and the BBC deliberately editing this video shows “actual malice” this was intentional and not a mistake. All their emails should be preserved and if there was any partisan connection and deliberate “malace” the BBC should be criminally charged. This is the only way to start cleaning up the press. While there’s no “fake news statute,” there are existing laws that could potentially apply in specific, egregious circumstances which has been shown here by the BBC. This is the area where prosecutors have recently tested the legal limits. The theory is that publishing a story of value to a campaign, when coordinated with that campaign, can be considered an illegal, unreported campaign contribution.  The Michael Sussmann Case (2021) comes to mind. A lawyer was acquitted, but the special counsel argued he lied to the FBI while acting on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. In his defense, he successfully argued that the meeting with the FBI was brief and focused on the substance of the data, not on who Sussmann’s clients were, and that the FBI agent’s memory of the specific statement was not sufficiently reliable. Thus, the jury found him not guilty. The legal theory was that his lie was a “thing of value” to the campaign, making it a potential campaign finance violation. My advice is that this precedent can apply to a journalist. If a journalist coordinated directly with a political campaign to deliberately publish a known false story as the BBC has done here, the value of that “hit piece” (the advertising space and the credibility of the news outlet) could be construed as an illegal, unreported in-kind contribution. This is a complex and legally uncertain area, but it’s the one most actively explored by prosecutors. Someone in Congress needs to launch this against the BBC NOW!!!!! Since (18 U.S.C. § 371) makes it a crime to conspire to impair or obstruct a lawful function of the government through deceit, if a journalist conspired with others (like a foreign government or a campaign) to deliberately publish disinformation with the specific intent to disrupt the election process—a lawful government function—this law could potentially be invoked. This would be an extremely aggressive and rare use of the statute but I believe it properly falls within its four corners. Then there is the catch-all statue. Laws against wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) prohibit using interstate communications to execute a “scheme to defraud.” This squarely falls within a broadcast. A court would have to find that the public has a “property right” in a fair and honest election, and that the fake news scheme sought to deprive them of that right. Our property right in terms of an election is the cornerstone of everything about our civilization. If there is no “free election” then there us no Republic or Democratic Process and I have been deprived of my most fundamental right of citizenship. I would argue that the BBC also conspired against my civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241. If any contact with the Democrats or someone in the Biden Administration too place, then the most direct and specific federal statute that prohibits interfering with a federal election is 18 U.S.C. § 595. “Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments.” Here is is a crime for any person employed in any administrative position by the United States, a State, or a Territory to use their official authority to interfere with, affect, or attempt to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives. Why the BBC needs to be subpoenaed instantly is that a government employee in an administrative position (this distinguishes them from elected officials or political appointees whose jobs are inherently political), so anyone in the Biden Administration, then this blows up into bigger than Watergate. Defamation Of course, there is the publishing a knowingly false statement that damages a candidate’s reputation is defamation. In the case of a public figure like a candidate, the plaintiff must prove “actual malice.” Defamation is almost always a civil offense, meaning the harmed candidate can sue the journalist or outlet for monetary damages, but the journalist is not going to jail. There are very few “criminal defamation” laws still on the books in some states, but they are rarely used and may be unconstitutional. It is

So proud to be a New Yorker! The American dream continues! Congrats, Mayor @ZohranKMamdani ???? pic.twitter.com/nvR5Zb46TI — Alex Soros (@AlexanderSoros) November 5, 2025 Alex Soros, heir to the Open Society Foundations, publicly congratulated Zohran Mamdani on securing the far left’s position in New York. “So proud to be a New Yorker! The American dream continues! Congrats, Mayor Zohran Mamdani,” Soros wrote. Zohran Mamdani is NOT an anti-establishment candidate—he is an anti-Trump and anti-American puppet installed by the billionaire globalists. Neo-Marxists only want to eat the rich who do not support their causes. But first, they need to starve and confuse the masses so that they target the “rich” rather than the government. Soros paid good money to help Mamdani’s campaign, donating between $24 to $37 million on groups like DSA and Working Families Party that supported the Democratic candidate. President Donald Trump previously suggested that Alex and George Soros be charged with RICO due to their open support for violent protests across the nation, with the most recent one surrounding Palestine. “George Soros, and his Wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, all throughout the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to ‘BREATHE,’ and be FREE.” What happens when neo-Marxism combines with Islam? New York will be the test subject. Mamdani famously supported the slogan, “Globalize the intifada,” which he hailed as “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.” He supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and refuses to denounce Shira Law. “I think critiques of the state of Israel are critiques of a government, as opposed to critiques of a people and of a faith,” Mamdani said. “And my job is to represent every single New Yorker, and I will do so no matter their thoughts and opinions on Israel and Palestine, of which millions of New Yorkers have very strong views — and I’m one of them.” He is not against the Jews, like his friend Alex Soros; he is simply against all things Western. As George Soros said in 1995: “The transformation of a closed society into an open one is a systematic transformation. Practically everything has to change and there is no blueprint. What the foundations have done is to change the way the transformation is brought about. They mobilized the energies of the people in the countries concerned.” Mamdani is the puppet that will be used to lead the mobilization of globalization, starting by fueling New York’s welfare state to make the people dependent on government. George Soros has always wanted to control NYC, and now he has it in his pocket. The mayor has limited power and will not be able to implement all the lavish promises he spewed at the podium. Yet this is a big step toward converting cities and then states to destabilize the collectiveness of the United States in the hopes that its place as the world’s superpower will vanish.