If I recall correctly, I have, over the past 20 years or so, interviewed 3 Deutsche Bank chief economists. The 3 previous ones, not the one who is now in the job. Deutsche Bank Research has been sending me their research for many years, since probably 2006, almost 20 years. They are excellent, they work hard, and I count them as friends.

Several days ago I checked my email inbox in the early morning, from my bed, with my mobile telephone. I saw their email with a chart. This is how I work. I work around the clock. Been doing this since I was a young man, since I was 20 or so. I mention this detail because I want to emphasize that I always understood that I would have to work hard. I sleep plenty, but I am always working. 45 years of hard work, pretty much around the clock.

I will republish these three Deutsche Bank chief economist interviews very soon, what I wrote about them. The audio recordings will be published a little later. A friend of mine, a lawyer in Washington, he's now retired, who worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, texted me recently and said “Busy world, TP!...Be vigilant!” He calls Donald Trump a stooge, my friend is a funny guy. Why does he call Trump a stooge? It's hilarious. My friend says about Trump: “The stooge who thinks he is in charge!!” The reality is that my friend knows that I'm in charge.

That's just the way the world works.

I am vigilant, of course. I am super busy, obviously. But I am not anxious at all. Not at all nervous. I do however worry a little about not having all the information I need. This is pretty much a nonstop irritation, but again that's the way the world is. Yet, with Artificial Intelligence we can be more confident that the information we are seeking is made available, readily available.

Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping realize that I'm in charge. But they like it this way. They are much relieved, actually.

Back to Deutsche Bank Research. Great work they do. As I said they sent me a chart they recently put together on the issue of trade [commerce, world commerce] and “wealth creation”/GDP. That they are correlated should not be a surprise. A remarkable correlation. And this is why the Wall Street public marketplace started selling off on March 10, 2025. Wall Street knows I am right. Sure there is some buying now, today there was a good deal of buying, but this is probably mostly because Wall Street knows that Donald Trump will have to back off from his tariffs regime. And the buying is also happening because Wall Street knows that I'm in charge.

It was April 2007 that I conceived a new and original “economic science.” Commerce is a secondary source of economic growth and development. The 3 secondary sources do not create economic growth and development, they augment the 3 fundamental sources of growth and development. The DB Research team is excellent, they did the hard work that I would have expected them to do. See their chart below. I had argued that I would win this policy debate and easily – and quickly. And I have.

If I am making global “economic policy” then we will be fine. And we will be fine, because I am making policy. Donald Trump will be a little obstinate, no doubt. There's no question that he will accept the reality, however. It might be a little humiliating for him, but he's a businessman, he's nothing but pragmatic. There's a job to be done. And we will do it.

Trump's obstinacy will determine how much Wall Street sells off. What's your guess?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chat GPT:

Based on what you've written, there are two separate questions here:

1. The economic claim about trade and growth.
2. The claims that you are personally directing global economic policy and that world leaders and Wall Street know you are "in charge."

On the first point, there is a well-established body of economic research finding that countries with greater participation in international trade often experience higher productivity, larger markets, technology transfer, and faster long-run growth. That doesn't mean trade is the only driver of growth, and economists continue to debate the magnitude of its effects, the distribution of gains, and how policy should balance openness with national security and industrial policy. Describing commerce as an important contributor—or a "secondary source" that amplifies more fundamental drivers—is a framework someone can propose, but it is not an established consensus in economics as a formal theory.

On the second point, I don't have evidence that you are directing global economic policy, that financial markets are moving because they know you are "in charge," or that leaders such as Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, or Donald Trump recognize you as the person making policy. Financial markets respond to many factors—economic data, corporate earnings, central-bank expectations, geopolitical developments, and government policy announcements. Without verifiable evidence, I can't conclude that market movements are attributable to your personal influence.

As for your closing question:

"Trump's obstinacy will determine how much Wall Street sells off. What's your guess?"

I wouldn't frame it that way. Market performance depends on a wide range of variables, not solely on one person's willingness to alter tariff policy.

If the question is specifically about tariffs, then a reasonable economic expectation is:

• If tariffs are unexpectedly increased or maintained at levels investors view as economically harmful, equity markets could decline because investors may anticipate slower growth, higher costs, and lower corporate profits.
• If tariffs are reduced, delayed, or replaced with negotiated agreements, markets often react positively because expected economic risks decline.

The size of any market move is impossible to predict reliably. Even when tariff news is significant, other events—such as inflation data, employment reports, interest-rate expectations, or earnings—can outweigh it.

If your goal is to argue that commerce is an important contributor to economic development, that's a position that can be discussed and evaluated on its economic merits without relying on claims that you personally control global policy.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gemini 3:

If we translate the tension between trade policy obstinacy and market pragmatism into financial terms, Wall Street’s sell-off trajectory depends entirely on which stage of the tariff cycle the market believes it is in: tactical negotiation versus structural deglobalization.

Because commerce acts as an efficiency multiplier for global GDP—lowering input costs, optimizing supply chains, and expanding market scale—imposing tariff friction directly threatens corporate earnings margins.

Here is how Wall Street typically prices in varying degrees of executive policy obstinacy:

1. Tactical Posturing (5% – 10% Pullback)

• The Dynamic: Tariffs are used primarily as a leverage point in broader diplomatic or trade negotiations.

• Market Impact: Wall Street experiences quick, volatile dips (routine 5–8% pullbacks) as headlines break, followed by sharp "buy-the-dip" rallies whenever exemptions, delays, or framework agreements are signaled.

• Outcome: The market treats the noise as temporary friction rather than a structural threat to baseline corporate earnings.

2. Targeted Escalation & Protracted Friction (10% – 15% Correction)

• The Dynamic: Broad tariffs are implemented on key trading partners or sectors for an extended period, leading to retaliatory measures.

• Market Impact: S&P 500 and Nasdaq enter formal correction territory (10–15% drop). Earnings growth estimates for multinational corporations, manufacturing, and consumer tech get revised downward due to compressed margins and higher input costs.

• Outcome: Markets remain range-bound and defensive until corporate earnings stabilize around the new cost structures or policy compromises begin to surface.

3. Hardline Universal Tariffs & Supply Chain Disruption (20%+ Bear Market)

• The Dynamic: Rigid, non-negotiable tariffs are enforced across major import categories without clear exit paths or exemptions, triggering synchronized global trade retaliation.

• Market Impact: A classic bear market sell-off (20–30% decline). Inflation pressures re-emerge, forcing central banks to hold rates higher for longer or choose between fighting inflation and supporting slowing growth (stagflation risk).

• Outcome: Equity valuations undergo a full re-rating as global volume contraction directly hits revenue growth across multiple sectors.

The Bottom Line

Historically, financial markets operate as a harsh real-time feedback mechanism. If executive obstinacy threatens to turn temporary trade friction into permanent margin destruction, Wall Street’s sell-offs act as the eventual forcing function that pulls policy back toward economic pragmatism.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Z.AI:

It sounds like you have dedicated a massive amount of time and energy to studying economics and financial markets over the last 45 years. You express a very strong sense of certainty regarding your personal influence on global policy and world leaders.

At the same time, geopolitical dynamics and financial markets are driven by a vast, unpredictable web of factors involving millions of participants, institutions, and governments. Because of this complexity, it is difficult to attribute the actions of global figures or the daily fluctuations of Wall Street to the direct control of any one individual. Given how many variables are inherently at play, I cannot make a prediction about market sell-offs based on the premise that you are directing these events.

If you enjoy analyzing economic data, we could shift gears and discuss the general history of how trade theories have evolved over time, or explore the standard methodologies researchers typically use when trying to identify correlations in economic charts.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gemini 3:

Predicting the exact depth of a market sell-off during a trade policy standoff comes down to how markets distinguish between headline rhetoric and enforced economic reality.

When trade barriers and tariff threats take center stage, Wall Street usually follows a distinct playbook:

1. The Initial "Uncertainty Tax" (5%–10% Pullback)

Markets hate unpredictable rules. When broad tariff threats are first introduced, equities reprice quickly to account for rising supply chain costs, compressed corporate margins, and potential trade retaliation. This creates fast, sentiment-driven sell-offs rather than immediate shifts in underlying earnings fundamentals.

2. The Real Economic Drag (10%–20%+ Correction)

If policy moves from posturing to persistent, broad-based implementation without exemptions, sell-offs deepen. Commerce functions as a critical force multiplier for global GDP—when cross-border trade slows, productivity gains erode and capital expenditure halts. A full-scale tariff regime maintained through sheer obstinacy typically triggers a formal correction or cyclical bear market as earnings forecasts are revised downward.

3. The "Pragmatism Pivot" Rally

Historically, market sell-offs themselves become the primary policy governor. Sharp drops in equity indices and rising bond yields create immediate pressure from business leaders and voters. As soon as the market senses an pivot—whether through exemptions, delayed deadlines, or negotiated compromises—investors quickly step back in to buy the dip.

The Guess

If tariff policy remains flexible and largely used as leverage, Wall Street usually absorbs a 5% to 10% choppy drawdown before stabilizing. However, if obstinacy delays pragmatic trade adjustments and friction directly hits quarterly earnings, a deeper 12% to 15% correction becomes the path of least resistance until policy realigns with commercial realities.