Join Us at the 2023 World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida!

? Dates: November 17, 18, and 19 ? Location: Orlando, Florida, USA (or tune in from home with our virtual ticket options)

Are you ready to unlock the future of economics and finance? Prepare for an unforgettable World Economic Conference experience in sunny Orlando, Florida! This premier event is your gateway to insights, networking, and valuable resources that will supercharge your understanding of the global economy.

?️ What’s Included for In-Person Attendees:

1. Event Admission: Enjoy reserved seating assigned based on the order of ticket sales, ensuring you have a prime view of every presentation.
2. Presentation Slides: Gain access to the presentation slides from all speakers, allowing you to delve deeper into the topics discussed.
3. Video Recording: Can’t make it to a session? No worries! You’ll receive access to video recordings of all conference presentations, so you can catch up at your convenience.
4. WEC Event App: Connect with the conference on a whole new level. Access presentation slides, bonus reports, recordings, and more via the official WEC Event App.
5. Bonus Conference Materials: Get a package of bonus conference-related materials, including exclusive bonus reports and videos (as provided by Martin Armstrong).
6. Morning Information Sessions: Don’t miss out on important morning information sessions, screened on-site in the meeting room on Saturday and Sunday.
7. Networking Opportunities: Exclusive access to the Event App Networking Feature allows you to connect with fellow attendees, both in-person and virtual, fostering valuable professional relationships.
8. Culinary Delights: Savor delicious breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday, prepared to keep you energized throughout the day.
9. Cocktail Reception: Kick off the conference in style at our Friday evening cocktail reception. Meet and mingle with fellow attendees while enjoying refreshing drinks.
10. Swag Bag: As a token of our appreciation, each in-person attendee will receive a swag bag filled with goodies, including an Armstrong Economics notebook, pen, and an event collector’s mug!

Unable to travel? We also have two different ticket options for those wishing to attend virtually! 

Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of a global gathering of economic and financial minds. Secure your spot at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida, and gain the knowledge, connections, and resources you need to thrive in the world of finance and economics.

Space is limited, so act now and reserve your seat! Visit our Events page to register and join us in sunny Orlando this November.

Now available at all major retailers!

The eBook will be available shortly.

The second edition of “The Plot to Seize Russia – The Untold History” is now available for purchase in paperback and hardcover on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. The ebook will be available shortly.

Book description:

“Take care of Russia,” Boris Yeltsin said as he departed his presidency in August 1999. These words were directed at current Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin specifically picked Putin as his predecessor to prevent the takeover of Russia.

So, who was Yeltsin warning against? Newly declassified documents from the Clinton Administration prove that there was a plot to rig the Russian election of 2000. These never-before-seen documents confirm numerous attempts to implement pro-Western policies using the Russian oligarchy headed by Boris Berezovsky.

On the other side were the communists who desired a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union. As one of the largest international hedge fund managers, author Martin Armstrong found himself in the middle of perhaps the greatest espionage, or attempt at a regime change for Russia, in modern history.

The Plot to Seize Russia pulls back the curtain to expose the most extraordinary attempt to seize power in modern history, but with the pen rather than armies. These declassified documents reveal a plot that has altered our thinking about the relations between the United States and Russia. The thirst for power comes seething through every line of these papers that alter our perception of reality, change the course of history, and now threaten us with World War III.

There is a growing contradiction unfolding in the global economy that exposes just how distorted this entire artificial intelligence narrative has become, because companies rushed to replace human labor under the assumption that machines would be cheaper, only to discover that in many cases AI is now costing more than the workers it was supposed to eliminate. The latest data shows compute expenses alone are exceeding payroll in some firms, with one Nvidia executive admitting outright that the cost of running AI systems has surpassed the cost of employees, while global IT spending is projected to surge to $6.31 trillion in 2026, up 13.5% in a single year.

Companies were sold the idea that AI would slash labor costs, yet they are instead encountering an explosion in infrastructure expenses, energy consumption, and ongoing operational costs that do not scale as human labor does. AI is not a one-time investment, it is a continuous cost center, and the more complex the system becomes, the more expensive it is to maintain.

At the same time, firms have already begun restructuring their workforce in anticipation of these savings, cutting jobs, freezing hiring, and eliminating entry-level roles, only to find that the economic benefits are not materializing as expected. There are estimates showing tens of billions poured into generative AI with the overwhelming majority of companies seeing little to no return, which is exactly how bubbles form, with capital chasing an idea before the underlying economics justify the investment.

AI does not necessarily reduce work, it often intensifies it. Studies tracking employee usage of AI tools have found rising burnout, increased pressure, and only marginal time savings, meaning workers are being pushed harder rather than replaced outright. The expectation that machines would lighten workloads is being replaced by a reality in which productivity demands increase and human workers are forced to compete with systems that never stop.

What is unfolding fits directly into the broader economic cycle, because this is not simply about technology; it is about capital concentration and the displacement of labor. The benefits of AI are captured by a very small number of firms that control the infrastructure, while the costs are distributed across the broader economy through layoffs, rising workloads, and increased financial pressure on businesses trying to keep up.

This is also why the labor market signals remain contradictory, because while there is widespread fear of job loss, the actual transition is uneven, with some sectors cutting aggressively while others struggle to integrate AI effectively. The narrative of immediate replacement has been exaggerated, but the structural shift is real and unfolding in phases that align with economic cycles rather than technological breakthroughs alone.

AI has become the new battlefield, requiring enormous capital investment, energy consumption, and geopolitical positioning, particularly as nations race to secure supply chains for semiconductors and data infrastructure. The critical mistake is assuming that technology alone determines the outcome, when in reality it is always the economic model that decides whether something succeeds or fails. Right now, the model is being stress-tested because companies are discovering that replacing humans with machines does not automatically yield savings; in many cases, it yields the opposite.

???? This morning: Iran sends the U.S. a peace proposal through Pakistani mediators.

This afternoon: Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi lands in Moscow for talks with Putin.

Tehran is negotiating with Washington while simultaneously coordinating with Moscow.

Classic… https://t.co/P7NaSzuSQ4 pic.twitter.com/LthEmPGEsd

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) April 27, 2026

The meeting between Vladimir Putin and Abbas Araghchi is being presented as a diplomatic gesture, yet the substance reveals something far more significant: Moscow has now openly pledged support for Tehran while negotiations with the United States continue to collapse. Russia reaffirmed its strategic backing and even positioned itself as a mediator, while at the same time strengthening its alliance with Iran through military, economic, and nuclear cooperation, making it clear that this relationship is not temporary but structural.

What matters here is not the language of peace but the alignment of power, because when major players begin coordinating at this level during an active conflict, history shows the situation is already moving beyond negotiation. Russia and Iran have been deepening ties for years through sanctions pressure, energy cooperation, and military exchanges, including intelligence sharing and weapons support, and this latest meeting confirms that the alliance is now being formalized in real time as the geopolitical divide widens.

The breakdown in talks with the United States was inevitable, since both sides are demanding outcomes that neither can accept, particularly on nuclear policy and regional control. Iran has made it clear it will not abandon enrichment, while Washington continues to insist on full concessions, leaving no realistic middle ground. At the same time, tensions around the Strait of Hormuz and ongoing military pressure ensure that even temporary ceasefires remain fragile and largely symbolic.

This is precisely the type of environment the war model has been projecting into 2026, where escalation unfolds through a sequence of failed negotiations, tightening alliances, and economic pressure points rather than a single defining event.

Putin is signaling to the world that the lines are being drawn, and once that process begins, it becomes increasingly difficult to reverse. The fact that both nations are already cooperating across multiple fronts, from energy to military coordination, shows that this is part of a broader realignment rather than a reaction to a single conflict.

The critical mistake is assuming that these events can be managed through continued negotiation, because once alliances harden and economic consequences begin to ripple through energy markets and capital flows, the cycle takes on a momentum of its own. This is why the war model has consistently pointed to this period as one of rising volatility, where events accelerate and policymakers lose the ability to control the outcome.

What we are seeing is not the beginning of a crisis but the continuation of a cycle that has already turned, and once that shift is in motion, history shows it rarely resolves quickly or peacefully.

?? Ukrainians unwilling to go to the front are attacking recruiters almost daily — Bloomberg

Attacks on military recruitment officers rose to 341 in 2025, with over 100 already this year

Virtually no volunteers are stepping up: ads targeting youth and women aren't working… pic.twitter.com/ngdgwLTFZB

— The Other Side Media (@TheOtherSideRu) April 21, 2026

A report from Ukraine’s own military ombudsman now admits that after just 40 days on the front lines, soldiers reach a point where they “stop caring whether they survive,” which is not a sign of resilience but psychological collapse. That is what happens when human beings are fed into a machine that has no exit.

The numbers alone are staggering and should end any illusion that this is sustainable. Estimates as of early 2026 suggest roughly 250,000 to 300,000 Ukrainian military casualties, killed and wounded combined, with far higher cumulative losses over the course of the war depending on the source. Even conservative tracking projects have documented more than 90,000 Ukrainian soldiers confirmed dead or missing by name, and those figures are widely understood to undercount the true scale of losses. This is not a contained conflict, it is a grinding attrition that is consuming an entire generation.

The manpower crisis is now so severe that it can no longer be hidden. Ukrainian units are reportedly operating at a fraction of the required strength, with positions that should be held by 30 soldiers reduced to five or seven trying to hold off waves of attackers. That is not a functioning army. It explains why they cannot rotate men out of the front lines. There are simply not enough replacements left to cycle troops through rest and recovery, so they are being pushed until they break.

Video footage from western Ukraine’s Volyn region shows a military recruiter pursuing a man across a rooftop.

Both fell during the chase, after which other recruiters detained the man on the ground and proceeded with his mobilization. pic.twitter.com/Lfj7hQd4g5

— Vitamvivere (@Vitamvivere) April 23, 2026

This is why we are seeing increasingly aggressive and controversial recruitment practices. Reports have documented men being stopped in the streets, detained, and forcibly taken for mobilization, with widespread resistance and even physical confrontations as authorities attempt to meet quotas. Allegations have surfaced of officials beating or detaining unwilling recruits, prompting protests and driving some men to flee the country entirely despite strict travel bans. This is not voluntary enlistment, it is coercion born out of necessity because the losses have become unsustainable.

At the same time, there have been increasing calls for Ukrainians abroad to return and participate in the war effort, which underscores the scale of the manpower shortage. When a country begins looking beyond its borders to replenish its fighting force while simultaneously tightening domestic mobilization, it is a clear signal that the internal pool of available soldiers is being exhausted.

??? BREAKING —

Ukrainian Civilian Forcibly Drafted

Kiev's Manpower Crisis Escalating pic.twitter.com/pUIcPZKOXL

— ⭐ ????????? ⭐ (@PamphletsY) April 25, 2026

What makes this even more disturbing is that none of this is being framed honestly. The narrative continues to suggest that this is manageable, that progress is being made, and that morale remains intact, yet the data and internal reports point to the opposite. Soldiers reaching the point where they no longer care whether they live or die is not morale, it is burnout at a level that destroys cohesion and long-term effectiveness.

This is precisely what the war model has been warning about, because once a conflict enters this phase of attrition, it stops being about territory and becomes about endurance. The 2026 Panic Cycle in international conflict is not defined by a single event but by this exact type of escalation, where losses mount, manpower shortages intensify, and governments begin taking measures that would have been unthinkable at the outset.

Wars reach a turning point when the cost in human life begins to exceed the capacity of the state to sustain it, and the signs of that threshold are now clearly visible. Forced mobilization, inability to rotate troops, and collapsing morale are not isolated issues, they are indicators that the system is under extreme strain.

What is unfolding is not a short-term crisis but the continuation of a cycle that is accelerating, and once it reaches this stage, history shows it rarely de-escalates on its own.

Over 50 nations are gathering in Colombia to map out a future without oil, gas, and coal, all while the world is in the middle of an energy crisis driven by war, supply disruptions, and rising demand that cannot even be met today. The same governments pretending they can eliminate fossil fuels are quietly scrambling behind the curtain to secure more of them just to keep the lights on.

This is what happens when policy is driven by ideology instead of reality. I have warned repeatedly that there is no viable alternative capable of replacing fossil fuels at scale. This is not an opinion. It is a simple matter of physics and infrastructure. Wind and solar cannot provide baseload power. They are intermittent, unreliable, and require storage systems that do not exist at the level needed to sustain a modern industrial economy. Yet politicians stand up and pretend we can simply flip a switch and transition the entire world economy to renewables as if energy were some optional luxury.

What they refuse to admit is that every single modern economy depends on fossil fuels at its core. Transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, heating, electricity, all of it. You cannot remove that foundation without collapsing the structure built on top of it. Even now, as they hold conferences and make declarations, countries are reverting to coal because when crisis strikes, theory disappears and survival takes over. That is the reality they will never say out loud.

Europe has already demonstrated the consequences of this madness. They went all in on Net Zero policies, deliberately restricting access to cheap and reliable energy, and now they are paying the price. Energy costs have soared, industry is fleeing, and economic growth has stagnated. Germany, once the industrial engine of Europe, has been undermined by its own energy policy. When you destroy your energy base, you destroy your economy. It is that simple. There is no way around it, no matter how many conferences they hold or agreements they sign.

The hypocrisy here is staggering. While they talk about eliminating fossil fuels, governments are simultaneously securing long-term oil and gas contracts. They are reopening coal plants. They are subsidizing energy just to prevent social unrest. They are saying one thing publicly while doing the exact opposite behind the curtain because they know the truth.

Energy is not something you experiment with at the expense of stability. When you artificially constrain energy supply, you drive up costs across the board. That feeds directly into inflation, reduces competitiveness, and ultimately forces capital to flee to regions where energy remains accessible and affordable. This is precisely why capital has been moving out of Europe. The policies are driving it away.

Governments are not preparing for a world without fossil fuels. They are preparing for conflict over the very resources they claim they want to eliminate. What they are proposing is not just unrealistic, it is dangerous. You cannot dismantle the global energy system and expect the economy to function. The attempt to force this transition prematurely is accelerating the very crisis they claim to be solving.

Germany has now openly declared its intention to become the dominant conventional military power in Europe by 2039. What Berlin is doing is a structural shift that has been building quietly for years, and now it is being formalized in plain sight. The plan calls for expanding the Bundeswehr to roughly 460,000 personnel, including reserves, with about 260,000 active troops, effectively doubling the scale of its usable force compared to today.

What stands out is that this is taking place at the same time Germany’s economy is stagnating, with growth forecasts collapsing toward just 0.5% while inflation rises due to energy pressures and geopolitical tensions. You are witnessing the classic historical pattern where governments shift resources toward military buildup as economic conditions weaken. This is precisely how capital is redirected during periods of rising geopolitical risk.

Germany’s military budget tells the real story. The Bundeswehr is now operating with roughly €108.2 billion in 2026, making it one of the largest defense budgets in the world, and a dramatic departure from the decades when Germany refused to even meet NATO’s 2% threshold. Just a few years ago, Germany was spending closer to €80–90 billion annually, and now projections show spending rising toward €150–160 billion by 2029, or roughly 3.5% of GDP.

This is a staggering transformation. For decades, Germany deliberately maintained a weak military posture as part of the post–World War II settlement. Now they are not only rearming, but they are also explicitly stating they intend to be the strongest conventional force in Europe. That would have been unthinkable twenty years ago.

From the perspective of the Economic Confidence Model and the war cycle, this fits perfectly into the timing window we have been warning about. The arrays have been showing a convergence of civil unrest and international war cycles into 2026–2027. What we are seeing in Germany is not isolated. It is part of a broader shift across Europe, where governments are preparing for sustained conflict risk, not a temporary crisis.

Germany has also moved beyond simply increasing spending. They are restructuring the entire military system, including technology integration, AI-driven warfare, and logistics infrastructure that can support rapid deployment across Europe. This is preparation for long-term engagement capability, not defensive posturing. Once governments begin investing at this scale, they are not planning for peace. They are preparing for confrontation.

I have said repeatedly that Europe would move toward militarization as internal political cohesion breaks down and external threats rise. Germany, historically constrained by its past, is now being repositioned as the military anchor of Europe. That changes the balance of power entirely. It also raises serious questions about the future of NATO, particularly as the United States begins to pull back and Europe is forced to stand on its own.

This is why capital flows continue to favor the United States for now, even with its own fiscal issues. Europe is moving into a period of instability, and Germany’s military expansion is confirming that shift. The cycle is turning, and once it does, it does not reverse overnight.

Gavin Newsom oversaw roughly $1 billion in spending tied to the influx of about 400,000 illegal migrants. According to the figures cited, California effectively expanded programs, contracts, and support systems at scale while already facing structural deficits and a collapsing cost-of-living environment. Newsom will never hesitate to spend California tax dollars on destroying the state.

The number that should stop everyone cold is not the $1 billion alone. It is the 400,000 additional people absorbed into a system that is already breaking. California is dealing with some of the highest housing costs in the United States, with median home prices hovering around or above $800,000 in many regions, and rents consuming a disproportionate share of income. Now layer in a population surge of that magnitude and pretend there are no consequences.

At the same time, the state has been running deficits that swing into the tens of billions depending on revenue assumptions. Yet despite that, officials continued expanding programs tied to migration, including tens of millions in additional funding for services such as legal aid, food assistance, and housing support. Healthcare expansion alone overshot projections by billions, forcing abrupt policy reversals and enrollment freezes when the math simply stopped working.

You cannot tell residents there is no money, raise taxes, watch businesses leave, and then turn around and commit massive resources to policies that increase demand on every strained system. Housing becomes tighter, emergency rooms become overcrowded, infrastructure deteriorates faster, and the working population is expected to absorb the cost. That is exactly what is happening.

The defenders of these policies argue that migration supports the labor force and economic growth. When you introduce hundreds of thousands of people into an already constrained system, the costs hit immediately while any theoretical benefits are delayed and uncertain. Housing demand spikes overnight. Public services are stretched instantly. The problem is visible in every major city across the state.

There is also a capital flight component that cannot be ignored. IRS migration data has shown consistent outflows from California, particularly among higher-income earners. These are the taxpayers who fund the majority of state revenues. As they leave, the tax base shrinks, yet spending commitments continue to rise. That is how you accelerate a fiscal crisis. You drive out revenue while expanding obligations.

If you increase population by hundreds of thousands, spend billions to support that increase, and do so while running deficits and losing your tax base, the outcome is predetermined. The system breaks.

The motive underscores Newsom’s ability to lead. Why import nearly half a million people who cannot contribute to the state economy? Polls. Taxes. Endless funds tied to NGOs and humanitarian causes that permit the state to seize endless tax dollars to combat the very issues it created.

California residents are watching their cost of living rise, their services decline, and their leadership act as if none of it matters. Newsom firmly believes that he will receive an infinite amount of funding, and he’s not wrong. It’s time that the people wake up and realize that Gavin Newsom and the far-left are destroying California.

QUESTION #1: Hello Mr. Armstrong. I have been a subscriber to one of your packages for a few years now & really enjoy your honesty & patriotism to all countries not only your own. I do have a question about Trump who seems to be the only one interested in blocking the straits in Iran. To me it looks like he wants it that way, not Iran. He must realize that if it becomes a 7-8 war he will be doing massive damage economically world wide. Is that not the goal of the neocons to convince everyone to go to war after they have lost everything.

COMMENT: I find it curious how people like ___________ pretend to be great forecasters but are simultaneously fund managers, which precludes them from speaking to central banks. Yet they seem to mimic you. You had to give up even personal stock investing to be able to even speak or advise. All they do is listen to you and copy what you say yet they do not have the database nor are they free of conflicts of interest.

Sometimes, you know… It just won’t fit.  You can fiddle with it, you can try to accommodate it, but you will never make it work. They are doing the world a disservice because they lack the database to forecast the future all by themselves.

RD

ANSWER: That is the dark side of humanity. Then they turn and ask for money to manage. What they do not realize is that when you get too big, your performance declines because you cannot invest the same with $10 billion as you do with $10 million.

There is a large and well-established body of research indicates a negative relationship between fund size and performance across most major asset classes. A 2015 paper by Pástor, Stambaugh, and Taylor, for example, provided strong evidence of what is known as “diseconomies of scale” in the active fund management industry. The effect is widely recognized as a major factor that erodes performance, particularly in strategies focused on less liquid assets like small-cap or micro-cap stocksand real estate funds as we have seen.

The bigger they are, the more you should be on guard. The performance decline is driven by a few core challenges that come with managing a larger pool of assets:

Liquidity Constraints, Reduced Information Edge, and Difficulties in Exiting Positions Large funds struggle to take meaningful positions in smaller, less liquid stocks without significantly moving the market price against themselves. This is particularly true for small and micro-cap stocks, where a fund’s size can destroy its own potential for gain. Exiting a large concentrated position can be as challenging as entering it if not worse, when everyone knows you are the elephant in the room. When a very large fund tries to sell, its own selling pressure can drive the stock’s price down, eroding returns.

I had to develop Natural Hedging dealing with portfolios in the trillions. Everything had to be strategically selected and correlated. Even when I testified before the House Ways & Means Committee, I had 50% of the equivalent of the US national debt under contract. You have to come up with a whole new way of funds management to survive.

The whole reason we have more institutional than anyone is because we cover the entire world and the computer tracks everything. Once you understand the methodology, it is the same globally so you can cover more. This allows our institutional clients to search the entire world to see what is hot and correlating. I certain;y cannot forecast from a gut feeling without such tools.

COMMENT: Marty, where were you? Looked all over for you at the White House Dinner. Wanted to catch up. You missed all the action.

B

REPLY: I haven’t been there in a while. It was always good fun. The best one was 1996. Bill Clinton gave a fantastic speech. He really knew how to work the crowd. I was sitting at the table with George will and other conservative commentators. I remember saying that was a fantastic speech. Well delivered. They were all upset. I just appreciated his speaking talent.

There were no gun shots that year. Just moans. Sorry I could not make it. I’m sure this one will be more memorable.