Economic News

  Zelensky said Friday that Ukraine will swap “thousands” of its drones to the U.S. in a deal for U.S.-made long-range missiles, which are typically launched from submarines and warships. Trump said Friday the U.S. is interested in Kiev’s drones and complimented Ukraine on its production of unmanned aircraft. However, sources have confirmed that Zelensky is NOT interested in peace, and Ukrainians hate Russians, and this is a systemic problem. The hatred of ethnic groups in the Balkans is legendary. Handing Zelensky Tomahawks will start World War III, and Russia would be entirely justified in outright nuking Kiev or handing similar weapons to both Iran and Venezuela. Handing Zelensky such weapons when he has openly threatened to destroy the Kremlin is like giving Hitler a nuclear bomb before anyone else. These Tomahawks can fly at high subsonic speeds and at low heights to evade radars, which would equip Ukraine with the increased range and capability to eradicate the Kremlin. The Neocons selected Ukraine because of their historic ethnic cleansing. The Ukrainian torture of Jews even horrified the German Nazis. The declassified documents showed the CIA protected them from prosecution because they were also killing Russians. You do not hand a psychopath a loaded gun. I am sorry, I have ZERO sympathy for Ukraine’s leadership, the EU leadership, NATO, or our Neocons. They are all sick people who will NEVER live in peace. We are fools for thinking you can negotiate with these people. Honor the Minsk Agreements, and there would never have been a war. The EU and Ukraine are not trustworthy. They signed the Minsk Agreement to buy time and never intended to allow the people to vote on their future.   https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Zelensky-Calls-for-Nuclear-War.mp4

Leer en Español From currency peg to currency band: Until 2005, China’s renminbi was pegged at CNY 8.3 per USD. From that moment on the government shifted to a managed float, allowing the currency to move within 2% of a daily rate set by China’s central bank, the PBOC. This change led the renminbi to depreciate by around a quarter over the decade that followed—a consequence of China’s massive trade surplus. Afterwards, from the mid-2010s to 2022, the currency further lost value as investors soured on China’s economy and the PBOC reduced its intervention in the FX market. Over the last two years, however, the currency has been broadly stable, largely as the PBOC has itself set a fairly stable exchange rate in order to limit depreciatory pressures. As a result, the renminbi has recently traded more like a currency that’s de facto pegged in a narrow trading band.  Renminbi internationalization still in the early stages: The Chinese government is making an effort to boost the attractiveness of the renminbi overseas. A decade ago the authorities introduced the cross-border international payment system (CIPS) as an alternative to the U.S.-dominated SWIFT system. Beijing has signed renminbi swap lines with dozens of foreign central banks, and pushed to settle more of its own trade in domestic currency. However, the renminbi still accounts for just 2% of international currency usage, compared to over 50% for the U.S. dollar. Restrictions on the exchange rate—which as mentioned have increased in the last couple of years—plus capital controls and concerns over sudden shifts in policymaking are likely to preclude the CNY from unseating the USD as the world reserve currency any time soon.  Our panelists’ forecasts for the exchange rate: The Consensus of the 50+ panelists we poll is for China’s renminbi to gradually appreciate over the coming years, and to move back below CNY 7.0 per USD by the end of the decade; monetary easing by the Federal Reserve will narrow the interest rate gap between the U.S. and China. However, any moves in the exchange rate are likely to be gradual, given the government’s focus on preserving stability above all else.   Insight from our panelists:  On the short-term outlook for the currency, Goldman Sachs analysts said:  “CNY continues to screen as significantly undervalued, with the degree of undervaluation now comparable again to the period of the China shock in the mid-2000s. While there is always substantial uncertainty around FX fair value metrics, recent economic performance—large export market share gains and a surge in the current account surplus—help corroborate these model estimates.”   On the outlook for renminbi internationalization, EIU analysts said:   “China will promote the use of the renminbi as a reliable international currency, at a time when confidence in the US dollar is eroded by Mr Trump’s policies. The outlook for reniminbi internationalisation is mixed, however. China could commit a greater amount of overseas aid and loans, along with other forms of support (including in supply chains), in exchange for the expansion of the renminbi’s role in global settlement and financing, as well as a reserve currency. Nevertheless, despite the growing percentage of the renminbi in trade settlement, the currency continues to make up less than 2% of global trade invoicing—suggesting limited (albeit growing) uptake in international trade. The renminbi will not emerge as a credible substitute to the US dollar in the medium term.” Our latest analysis:  New Zealand’s central bank slashed interest rates in October.  Germany’s industrial production slumped in August.  The post How will China’s currency fare in the coming years?  appeared first on FocusEconomics.

We Won’t Back Down Back in 2022, I warned that the British pound would fall below par, and that is not over. “We will not see a straight decline into 2026/2027, but that is where this is headed. The ideal support will be at the 72 to 76 level by then…” The extreme support by 2027 lies at 51 cents. That would tend to imply they lose against Russia. Breaking the 1985 low of $1.03 will then point to the 89 area.” After that, it is a meltdown.  This is the hallmark of LABOUR, which is a direct assumption from Karl Marx that we are just economic slaves, and when they created the EU, they made sure that there was no right of the people to choose a new government. They get to vote only for a Parliament that is for show and lacks any power to make a single law. I warned at last year’s WEC in Orlando that the computer was projected to be the demise of the Democratic Party. They are deeply divided and refuse to even listen to any criticism of what they stand for, from transgender to open borders, which was NOT what the American people wanted. At least we retain the right to change leadership, unlike Parliamentary systems and the European Union. This song, We Won’t Back Down, brings tears to the eyes of patriots. The first international panic os 1683 was the attempt of the Ottoman Empire to conquer Europe. The turmoil of the Balkans is drenched in blood. The Ottoman Empire did engage in forced religious conversions in the Balkans, but this was not a consistent, empire-wide policy throughout its entire history. The nature and scale of conversion varied dramatically by time, place, and circumstance. Contrary to popular myth, the Ottoman Empire’s primary approach to non-Muslims was not forced conversion economically. The state was organized under the Millet System, which granted religious communities (Orthodox Christians, Armenian Christians, Jews) a significant degree of autonomy that came with a price. They could practice their religion, run their own courts for personal law, and collect their own taxes. However, Non-Muslims paid a special tax called the jizya. Mass conversion would have drastically reduced state revenue. They conquered and converted the non-Muslims into economic slaves. The significant Muslim presence in the UK began as a result of migration waves that happened decades ago, primarily from the 1950s to the 1970s. The primary sources were from South Asia (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India), where post-war labour migration filled jobs in Britain’s industrial centres like Birmingham, Bradford, and Manchester. The 340-year cycle from the 1683 attempt to conquer Europe by the Ottoman Empire was 2023. The year 2023 was notable for irregular migration, specifically small boat crossings across the English Channel. However, the data does not support the idea that this was a “major influx of Muslims.” The top nationalities arriving by small boats in 2023 were Albanians, Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, and Syrians. The issue is not that they are Muslim. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh were countries that had been Westernized by British occupation and the rule of law. So those migrants assimilated culturally. These new groups are clashing, demanding to bring their culture to Britain, even changing the rule of law. Starmer has indeed destroyed everything that Britain once stood for. One thing that Margaret Thatcher said to me during one of our conversations was that Britain’s most extraordinary gift to Asia was the rule of law. She was correct insofar as, without the rule of law, investment becomes impossible. These migrants are coming from Albania, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, none of which attract serious international investment because they lack the respect for the rule of law, and thus making decisions on trillion dollar portfolios, that were countries that I could NEVER consider because there was no legal system even to secure the title to property. I am sorry. I have shed a tear for Britain. I was asked when Starmer was coming to power if I would come over and meet. I declined. Only a fool tries to convince another fool he is a fool. There is no evidence that I could ever present to Starmer that would convince him he is destroying Britain. He would never listen and probably throw me in prison for free speech, which he has extinguished and indeed now rules Britain out of fear, like any tyrant. If neither the police nor the military rise up, then Britain will never again be able even to use the word “Great.” Æthelstan (ruled 924-939), who is widely regarded as the first true King of England. He wasn’t “united athered,” but he united the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms under one rule. Starmer appeared on the 128th interval of the 8.6-year cycle, from 924AD. The United Kingdom began with the merger of England and Scotland in 1707.33 (May 1st, 1707). The 309.6-year cycle from that union marked BRIXT 2016.93. That alone confirmed that BRIXT would win. At the end of 2016, the government, under new Prime Minister Theresa May, argued it had the “prerogative power” to trigger Article 50 (the formal mechanism for leaving the EU) without a vote in Parliament. A legal challenge was mounted, arguing that only Parliament, as the sovereign body, could take away rights that it had initially been granted (EU-derived rights). The High Court Ruling (November 3, 2016) held that Parliament must vote to authorize the triggering of Article 50. This was a major blow to Theresa May’s plan for a swift and executive-led Brexit. The Supreme Court Appeal (January 24, 2017) saw the government appeal of the decision, but the Supreme Court upheld the ruling by a majority of 8 to 3. The court confirmed that an Act of Parliament was required before Article 50 could be invoked. In a major landmark speech on January 17th, 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May set out her government’s 12-point plan for Brexit, clarifying for the first time the UK’s core objectives. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the government introduced the European Union

President Donald Trump inherited a nation that was invaded. The invaders were incentivized to stay and permitted to coast under the radar. His administration was forced to throw down the gauntlet and forcibly remove the people who were invited to stay by the Democrats. New data indicate that ICE has removed approximately 600,000 migrants since January, with over 2 million having left overall. ICE warned that “this is just the beginning.”  Over 1.6 million people voluntarily self-deported. They heard the warnings loud and clear. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin discussed how there were no consequences for invaders during the Biden Administration. Again, these people were INVITED to enter the nation by the Democrats. “Illegal aliens are hearing our message to leave now or face the consequences. Migrants are now even turning back before they reach our borders,” McLaughlin said.   FAIR, a conservative advocacy group, believes that the US government was paying $8,776 annually per illegal alien. The figure includes education ($78B), healthcare ($42.7B), and justice ($47B) among the costs to harbor non-citizens. That would place current savings at over $5.2 billion annually; however, migrants received different compensation packages depending on where they landed. The Heritage Foundation estimated the figure to be around $14,387 per household. No one ever determined how many migrants passed through the borders under Biden. The latest ad campaign is urging migrants to leave willingly. Detention centers are avoidable. By now, anyone remaining in America illegally knows that they’re facing serious consequences for breaking US law. pic.twitter.com/dRcjwUdvl1 — Wayne Dunlap (@wdunlap) February 18, 2025 In contrast, the Biden Administration deported 271,000 in 2024 and 142,000 in 2023. Far more people entered the nation and these deportations were merely to make it seem as if the government was working to address the problem. The majority of Americans voted against open borders. Democrats invited countless millions into our home and expected us to be hospitable and pay whatever they demanded to subsidize their lives. A new poll found that 78% of Americans favored “deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have committed crimes.” Even 69% of Democrats favored deporting criminals. I simply do not understand the controversy or the thought process behind the 22% of respondents who believe foreign criminals should stay in the US. The majority (56%) favored deporting “all immigrants who are here illegally.” Only 36% of Democrats favor mass deportation efforts. My condolences to those still living under Build Back Better policies with open borders.

Jacob Silverman Does the defense secretary have unclaimed earnings from a firm he formerly advised? The post Pete Hegseth’s Crypto History appeared first on The Nation.

From Alberto Cavallo in the Harvard Gazette: See the interactive in the article. More on Cavallo et al. in this post.

Stories are circulating that Barack Obama funneled money through the Cayman Islands to NGOs. While that cannot be entirely verified, the portion of the story regarding the Obama Administration setting up a Twitter clone for Cuba called Zunzuneo is accurate. The US government under Obama sought ways to subliminally target the people of Cuba while bypassing the strict communist government restrictions on social media. USAID paid government contractors to create “Cuban Twitter,” which first launched in 2009. Initially, ZunZeneo (translation: “hummingbird”) used the platform to discuss neutral topics such as sports, weather, and entertainment. Once the platform expanded to hundreds of thousands of Cubans, the US government began inserting political messages aimed at inciting civil unrest. The Associated Press even ran an article about the incident in April 2014, “US secretly built ‘Cuban Twitter’ to stir unrest.” A leaked memo from Mobile Accord Inc., the company responsible for creating the platform, emphasized the importance of hiding the US government’s involvement. “This is absolutely crucial for the long-term success of the service and to ensure the success of the Mission,” the memo said. Slow growth was essential for the covert operation. The social platform utilized cellphone text messaging to bypass Cuba’s internet restrictions. “Non-controversial content” on hot topic was used to build a mass subscriber base. Nearly half a million people were subscribed to the platform before the content changed with the goal of organizing “smart mobs” to “renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society,” as one USAID memo revealed. USAID did not attempt to conceal its involvement, noting in a public statement that the agency was “proud of its work in Cuba to provide basic humanitarian assistance, promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to help information flow more freely to the Cuban people,” whom it said “have lived under an authoritarian regime” for 50 years. USAID claimed it was operating legally, but covert mission to influence foreign politics must be approved by the president. Former President Obama was aware of the program but could not openly discuss his involvement. Cubans were persuaded to rebel with known legal repercussions, wholly unaware that the messaging was coming from a foreign government. “Mock ad banners will give it the appearance of a commercial enterprise,” one proposal suggested. “The Cuban government, like other regimes committed to information control, currently lacks the capacity to effectively monitor and control such a service,” Bernheim wrote in a proposal for USAID marked “Sensitive Information.” Acting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew of the mission. By 2011, she began openly discussing the importance of infiltrating foreign governments via the internet to lead to “revolutionary change.” Others in the Biden Administration were left in the dark. “We were told we couldn’t even be told in broad terms what was happening because ‘people will die,’” said Fulton Armstrong, who worked for both the Clinton White House and later the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The ZunZuneo management team was also unaware of US involvement. USAID NGOs hired Cuban artists to draft messages to appeal to the people. The “Peace without Borders” concert in 2009 was the largest gathering since the visit of late Pope John Paul II. The US government used the occasion to gather intel through ZunZeno. Unassuming polls were sent out to the people, with some messaging containing subtle political components. One message asked respondents if they believed anti-government artists should join the concert. The US government gathered the cell phone numbers of the people who seemed receptive to use in future targeted attacks. This is completely illegal and a violation of data laws. “If it is discovered that the platform is, or ever was, backed by the United States government, not only do we risk the channel being shut down by Cubacel, but we risk the credibility of the platform as a source of reliable information, education, and empowerment in the eyes of the Cuban people,” Mobile Accord noted in a memo. Shell companies were created throughout various nations, including the Cayman Islands where the company banked with N.T. Butterfield & Son Ltd. “In the implementation has the government taken steps to be discreet in non-permissive environments? Of course. That’s how you protect the practitioners and the public.” USAID spokesman Matt Herrick noted. “In hostile environments, we often take steps to protect the partners we’re working with on the ground. This is not unique to Cuba.” Influencing foreign politics is certainly not unique to Cuba. A USAID contractor by the name of Alan Gross was sent to Cuba to provide internet access to the people. The program was launched shortly after he was arrested, as his initial goal to compromise Cuba’s internet failed. USAID is solely used to influence foreign politics under the guise of providing aid that the American people provide through taxation. The platform vanished from the internet in 2012 when Obama was running for his second term. Social media is a favorite tool of government to influence the masses. The amount of money allocated to Cuban Twitter is unknown since USAID operated extremely discreetly, funneling money to endless NGOs to conceal its motives.

Download our free PDF report, which elaborates further on the below analysis and complements it with graphs, quotes from leading economists, and other key forecasts for the region.  The regional economy has been weak as of late: Latin America’s economy grew an average of just 1.4% in the decade to 2024—the weakest performance among all world regions. For comparison, the far-wealthier euro area expanded 1.5%, while the corresponding figure for Eastern Europe—the next-slowest-growing emerging market—was 2.7%. Latin America’s chronic political instability, high levels of crime and corruption, subpar education system, reliance on the volatile commodity sector and lack of presence in fast-growing industries such as electronics and IT are all factors that have held back regional GDP growth over the past decade.  U.S. tariff impact to be manageable: The U.S. rolled out fresh tariffs this year that hit Latin America with a 10% baseline on most imports, extra charges on aluminum, cars, copper, and steel, plus “reciprocal” duties on a handful of countries including Brazil, Mexico, and Bolivia. But compared with other regions, Latin America gets off relatively lightly—many nations dodged the reciprocal tariffs thanks to their U.S. trade deficits, and plenty of carve-outs soften the blow where tariffs do apply. Brazil’s 50% levy only bites on a fraction of imports, Chile and Peru’s copper exports stay safe as long as they’re unprocessed, and Mexican firms can sidestep penalties by sticking to USMCA rules. Still, the bigger worry isn’t today’s tariffs but tomorrow’s: the cloud of uncertainty is already cooling investment, with Tesla and BYD pulling the plug on planned Mexican factories.  Our GDP growth Consensus forecasts: Our Consensus is for Latin America to remain the slowest-growing emerging market over our forecast horizon to 2029, with average annual GDP growth of slightly above 2%. Unlike in the past decade, the inter-country forecast range is expected to be fairly narrow, with the region’s economies growing between 1 and 3% on average. However, our panelists expect individual years to still see considerable variability. For instance, next year, Venezuela’s economy is forecast to contract, Bolivia’s to roughly flatline, and Paraguay’s to record an over 3% expansion.  For more detailed insights into what’s in store for the region in the coming years, download our free PDF report on Latin America’s economic outlook.    Insight from our panelists:   On the outlook for the Latin American economy, EIU analysts said: “Regional economic growth will slow to 2% in 2025-26, as the fallout from US protectionism—including the uncertainty this is creating—will dampen trade and investment in Latin America. Mexico’s economy will be hit the hardest, given its close ties with the US, whereas the impact on Brazil and other South American commodity exporters will be partially offset by their greater trade relationships with China. A rebound in Argentina’s economy from a two-year slump has run into headwinds recently, but should resume following pledges of US financial assistance and assuming that the ruling party of the president, Javier Milei, strengthens its legislative position at mid-term elections in October. Opportunities in Latin America in critical minerals, energy and infrastructure will remain attractive for investors.”   Our latest analysis:   U.S. retail sales beat expectations in August.   Nigeria’s oil production ticked down in August.  The post A diamond in the rough: Will Latin America finally reach its potential?  appeared first on FocusEconomics.

Download our free PDF report, which elaborates further on the below analysis and complements it with graphs, quotes from leading economists, and other key forecasts for the region.  The regional economy has been weak as of late: Latin America’s economy grew an average of just 1.4% in the decade to 2024—the weakest performance among all world regions. For comparison, the far-wealthier euro area expanded 1.5%, while the corresponding figure for Eastern Europe—the next-slowest-growing emerging market—was 2.7%. Latin America’s chronic political instability, high levels of crime and corruption, subpar education system, reliance on the volatile commodity sector and lack of presence in fast-growing industries such as electronics and IT are all factors that have held back regional GDP growth over the past decade.  U.S. tariff impact to be manageable: The U.S. rolled out fresh tariffs this year that hit Latin America with a 10% baseline on most imports, extra charges on aluminum, cars, copper, and steel, plus “reciprocal” duties on a handful of countries including Brazil, Mexico, and Bolivia. But compared with other regions, Latin America gets off relatively lightly—many nations dodged the reciprocal tariffs thanks to their U.S. trade deficits, and plenty of carve-outs soften the blow where tariffs do apply. Brazil’s 50% levy only bites on a fraction of imports, Chile and Peru’s copper exports stay safe as long as they’re unprocessed, and Mexican firms can sidestep penalties by sticking to USMCA rules. Still, the bigger worry isn’t today’s tariffs but tomorrow’s: the cloud of uncertainty is already cooling investment, with Tesla and BYD pulling the plug on planned Mexican factories.  Our GDP growth Consensus forecasts: Our Consensus is for Latin America to remain the slowest-growing emerging market over our forecast horizon to 2029, with average annual GDP growth of slightly above 2%. Unlike in the past decade, the inter-country forecast range is expected to be fairly narrow, with the region’s economies growing between 1 and 3% on average. However, our panelists expect individual years to still see considerable variability. For instance, next year, Venezuela’s economy is forecast to contract, Bolivia’s to roughly flatline, and Paraguay’s to record an over 3% expansion.  For more detailed insights into what’s in store for the region in the coming years, download our free PDF report on Latin America’s economic outlook.    Insight from our panelists:   On the outlook for the Latin American economy, EIU analysts said: “Regional economic growth will slow to 2% in 2025-26, as the fallout from US protectionism—including the uncertainty this is creating—will dampen trade and investment in Latin America. Mexico’s economy will be hit the hardest, given its close ties with the US, whereas the impact on Brazil and other South American commodity exporters will be partially offset by their greater trade relationships with China. A rebound in Argentina’s economy from a two-year slump has run into headwinds recently, but should resume following pledges of US financial assistance and assuming that the ruling party of the president, Javier Milei, strengthens its legislative position at mid-term elections in October. Opportunities in Latin America in critical minerals, energy and infrastructure will remain attractive for investors.”   Our latest analysis:   U.S. retail sales beat expectations in August.   Nigeria’s oil production ticked down in August.  The post A diamond in the rough: Will Latin America finally reach its potential?  appeared first on FocusEconomics.

Legacy media exists to promote propaganda and political agendas. The 24/7 365 news cycle acts as a distraction from the topics plaguing society. The revolution will not be televised. Truth must be decoded and extracted from outside sources. Americans have woken up and realized that the mainstream media is an untrustworthy source. The latest Gallup poll has found that the majority of Americans now distrust the media. Only 28% of respondents have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in newspapers, television, and radio. The figure seems high considering everything that has unfolded since the pandemic. Around 31% of respondents trusted the media one year ago. Amid COVID in 2020, 40% of respondents held onto hope that the mainstream media was a reliable news source. Seven in 10 Americans reported that they do not have confidence in the mass media. Around 36% reported they have “not very much” confidence, while 34% reported “none at all.” Gallup noted that Americans had a much higher level of confidence in the media back in the day. Around 70% of US adults trusted TV, radio, and newspapers to deliver reliable information back in the 1970s. That figure plummeted to 53% by 1997 and fell beneath the 50% level in 2004. The latest reading from September 2-16, 2025, indicated the lowest confidence on record. There is one conservative news outlet in America, and naturally, Republicans have far lower confidence in reporting. MSM confidence among Republicans plummeted to 21% in 2015 and is now at a mere 8%. A little over half (51%) of Democrats continue to trust the media, but this low has not been seen since the 2016 US Presidential Election. Less than half of Independents have trusted legacy media since 2003, with the latest poll showing a record low of 27%. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Fakes-News-USA.mp4   Older Democrats are clinging to old beliefs that the legacy media is reporting on behalf of the people. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats over 65 still have confidence in broadcasting, with the figure declining ten points or more with each generation of self-reported Democratic voters. Republicans over 65 also have the highest levels of trust in the media among their peers at 17%, with young Republicans aged 18-29 expressing the second-most favorable view of mass media. In contrast, the next generation of Republicans aged 30-49 have the lowest level of confidence among any demographic at 6%. As the trend indicates, older Independents also express the highest level of confidence among their peers (42%), followed by the youngest Independent voters (29%) aged 18-29. The days of the Sunday paper are long gone, as are the days of gathering around the TV to watch the nightly news. “Journalism” has been oversaturated by the 24/7 news cycle ,bombarding the public with messaging at every turn. One cannot step outside or interact with society without seeing messaging from the media that is often pushed discreetly. Social media has turned everyone with a phone into an independent reporter with the same video loops and messages playing in a continuous loop. The American people are fatigued by the mockingbird media, and more importantly, by the establishment’s brainwashing onslaught.