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.

According to the latest figures, rents in the UK have now reached 36.1% of average earnings, the highest level ever recorded. At the same time, average monthly rents have climbed toward roughly £1,300–£1,400 depending on the dataset, with London far exceeding that level. Once housing consumes more than one-third of income, discretionary spending collapses, and the broader economy stalls.

What the press consistently ignores is that this crisis is not being driven by “greedy landlords” or speculation. It is a supply crisis that has been building for decades. Britain now has roughly 1.6 million fewer affordable social homes than it did in 1981. That is a staggering figure. Governments have simply failed to replace what they once built, and then they layered on regulations, taxes, and energy mandates that drove private landlords out of the market.

We have already seen approximately 200,000 rental properties disappear in just a single year as smaller landlords exit due to rising costs, taxes, and regulatory burdens. This is exactly how governments create shortages. They attack the supply side and then pretend to be shocked when prices rise. It is the same pattern we see repeatedly throughout history, whether in Rome, France, or modern Europe.

At the same time, the cost of borrowing has risen sharply. Interest rates surged after 2022, making homeownership increasingly unattainable for many. That forced more people into the rental market, increasing demand precisely as supply was shrinking.

The situation is further complicated by the broader cost-of-living crisis. Real incomes have been under pressure for years, with essential expenses rising faster than wages. When you combine declining real income with rising housing costs, you are effectively squeezing the middle class out of existence. This is not sustainable, and it feeds directly into the civil unrest cycles we have been warning about going into 2026 and beyond.

Even when we see temporary relief, such as a slight slowdown in rent growth or a modest increase in housing supply, it does not solve the structural problem. The system is broken. You cannot regulate your way out of a supply shortage. You cannot tax your way to affordability. And you certainly cannot restore confidence by constantly shifting the rules.

What is unfolding in the UK real estate market is part of a much larger global trend. Governments are losing control of their economies because they refuse to address the real issue, which is the sovereign debt crisis and the need to maintain confidence. Instead, they are turning to regulation, digital oversight, and intervention, all of which only accelerate the decline.

Real estate has always been a reflection of confidence. When people believe in the future, they invest, they build, and they expand. When confidence collapses, they retreat, supply contracts, and prices rise in a distorted manner. That is precisely what we are witnessing today in Britain.

There are moments in history that expose the true nature of a regime, and what we are seeing now coming out of Iran is one of them. Reports indicate that the government is once again preparing for the possibility of deploying children into conflict, even going so far as to produce uniforms sized for minors. This is not propaganda, this is preparation. When a state begins organizing for the use of children in war, it is no longer operating within any civilized framework. It is operating purely on ideology and survival.

According to recent reports, Iran has been mobilizing youth structures tied to the regime, signaling that minors could be drawn into the conflict if escalation continues. The fact that children’s uniforms already exist tells you everything you need to know.

Iran is no stranger to putting children in harm’s way. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the regime openly used child soldiers. They sent young boys to clear minefields, often with nothing more than a plastic or brass “Key to Heaven” around their necks, promising them entry into paradise if they died. Thousands of children were sacrificed under the banner of ideology.

Iran drove Iraqi forces out by 1982. The conflict could have ended years earlier, saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Instead, Ayatollah Khomeini chose to prolong the war in pursuit of a broader ideological goal, the overthrow of the Iraqi Baathist regime and the expansion of the revolution. That decision led to years of unnecessary bloodshed, including the deaths of countless children sent to the front lines.

And now we are seeing the same mindset re-emerge. When a government begins to prepare children for war, it is not because it has run out of options. It is because it prioritizes ideology over human life. It reflects a system that is willing to sacrifice its own population to maintain power or pursue a broader geopolitical objective. That is always the hallmark of regimes that are under extreme pressure, both internally and externally.

The Economic Confidence Model has been warning that we are entering a period of rising geopolitical instability into 2027 and beyond. What we are seeing in Iran fits that pattern precisely. As tensions escalate, governments begin to take more extreme measures, and the line between military necessity and ideological fanaticism begins to disappear. The use of children in war is not a sign of strength. It is a sign that a regime is willing to cross any boundary to survive.

Once a government begins sacrificing its own future generation, it has already entered a dangerous phase. Iran has done this before. The evidence is undeniable. The only question now is whether the world will recognize the warning signs, or once again look back years from now and ask how such a tragedy was allowed to happen again.

A grandmother, Angela Lipps, was arrested at gunpoint in her own home after facial recognition software flagged her as a suspect in a bank fraud case in North Dakota, a state she had never even visited. Authorities relied on AI-generated matches from surveillance footage and compared those results to her driver’s license and social media photos. That was enough to issue a warrant.

She was jailed for months, extradited over 1,000 miles, and held without meaningful review until her attorney presented simple bank records proving she was in Tennessee at the time of the alleged crime.

The case collapsed almost immediately, but by then she had lost her home, her car, and even her dog. This is what happens when governments begin to trust machines more than basic investigation.

AI is not intelligence. It is pattern recognition. It compares images, identifies similarities, and produces probabilities. It does not understand context, intent, or truth. Yet those probabilities are now being treated as evidence. That is where the system breaks down. Once a machine flags someone, the burden shifts onto the individual to prove innocence rather than on the state to prove guilt.

We have already seen this before. There have been multiple cases across the United States where facial recognition systems misidentified individuals, leading to wrongful arrests. In each case, the same pattern emerges. The software produces a match and investigators build a case around it instead of questioning it. Basic verification steps are skipped because the assumption is that the system is correct.

The problem is that people assume AI is the end-all, be-all of supreme knowledge. Every output is treated as fact. That is how you end up with someone sitting in jail for months for a crime they did not commit.

This ties directly into what we are seeing more broadly with artificial intelligence. Even inside the tech industry, there are growing concerns about how these systems are being deployed. The recent resignation of a senior figure at OpenAI raised alarms about the pace at which AI is advancing compared to the safeguards in place. Concerns were expressed about the risks of misuse, lack of oversight, and the potential for these systems to be weaponized in ways that were never intended. When those closest to the system begin warning about its misuse, it should not be ignored.

Governments are already expanding surveillance, tracking financial transactions, and building digital identity frameworks. AI becomes the engine that ties all of this together. It allows systems to flag individuals automatically, at scale, without human judgment.

Once that infrastructure is in place, the implications are enormous. You can be flagged, investigated, or even detained based on data patterns that may be incorrect. And by the time the mistake is discovered, the damage is already done.

What happened in Tennessee is a warning of what happens when accountability is removed from the process. It took minutes to prove she was innocent. It took months for the system to admit it was wrong. This is the risk of replacing judgment with algorithms.

The latest report underscores growing concern within NATO itself over whether weapons intended for Ukraine are actually reaching their destination, as Finland has now moved to audit deliveries amid uncertainty. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that Washington “is not redirecting NATO-purchased weapons for Ukraine to the Middle East,” but notably “stopped short of ruling out the possibility.” At the same time, Donald Trump offered a broader and more revealing explanation, saying the United States is “constantly moving weapons between different parts of the world.”

The question of why NATO is fully committed to Ukraine yet far more restrained when it comes to Iran is a window into how modern geopolitics actually functions beneath the surface. What you are witnessing is not about morality, democracy, or even alliances in the traditional sense. It is about capital flows, regional control, and the strategic priorities of those directing policy behind the curtain.

From everything I have written over the years, the war in Ukraine has always been about Europe, not Russia. The objective has been to isolate Russia economically while simultaneously forcing Europe into dependency. By cutting off Russian energy and pushing sanctions, the EU effectively destroyed its own industrial base. Capital began to flee Europe and flow into the United States. That was the real outcome. The war became a mechanism to redirect capital flows, and that is why NATO is “all in.” Ukraine is the lever being used to reshape Europe.

Iran is a completely different equation. A direct, unified NATO engagement against Iran would risk destabilizing the entire Middle East in a way that cannot be contained. You are dealing with the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of global oil flows. Any escalation there immediately impacts energy prices worldwide and risks triggering a broader regional war involving multiple actors. This is not Ukraine, where the conflict can be geographically contained. This is a choke point for the global economy.

Historically, NATO has always been strongest when operating within a clearly defined regional framework tied to Europe. Ukraine fits that model. Iran does not. Iran sits at the crossroads of competing interests involving not just the West, but also China, Russia, and regional powers. A unified NATO front against Iran would risk fracturing the alliance itself, particularly as Europe is already under severe economic strain. They simply do not have the capacity to sustain another major conflict.

There is also the issue of public tolerance. Europe can justify its involvement in Ukraine under the narrative of defending its borders and countering Russia. That argument resonates politically within NATO countries. Iran does not present the same narrative framework. A direct war with Iran would be far more difficult to sell domestically, especially given the economic consequences that would follow.

But the real underlying factor, as I have consistently explained, is confidence. The global system is being held together by confidence in governments, currencies, and institutions. Ukraine has been used as a controlled conflict to manage that system, to justify spending, to redirect capital, and to consolidate political power. Iran represents an uncontrolled variable.

Finnish Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen reinforced Europe’s role in undying support for Ukraine. “What has been promised to Ukraine must reach Ukraine,” Häkkänen stated. “We constantly assess how funds are being spent, and we believe the mechanism works. Of course, if problems arise, we will have to review this.”

Despite decades of the United States funding and effectively underwriting NATO’s military power, Europe has largely refused to join direct offensive operations against Iran. President Trump openly criticized NATO allies for failing what he called a “loyalty test,” pointing out that after trillions spent defending Europe, the alliance was “not there” when the United States needed support in the Middle East. The response from Europe has shown that NATO is not united.

This is where the future of NATO itself comes into question. If the United States continues to shoulder the financial burden while Europe selectively participates only when it serves its own interests, then the entire premise of the alliance begins to break down. Trump has already made it clear that alliances must provide tangible benefits, not just political symbolism. If Washington concludes that NATO is no longer a mutual defense pact but a one-sided obligation, then the pressure to reassess or even exit will intensify. Alliances do not collapse overnight, they erode when confidence disappears and when one side no longer sees value in maintaining the relationship. Should that realization take hold in the United States, the possibility of stepping back from NATO is no longer unthinkable.

Virginia is allowing 22-year-old grown men, illegal migrants who don’t speak English, to enroll in public high school with your 14- and 15-year-old daughters. Mind you, American kids get booted at 20.

Illegals can stay until 22 free of charge, thanks to Virginia Code §… pic.twitter.com/NDE1zYUBD8

— Sadie (@Sadie_NC) March 25, 2026

Reports emerging out of Virginia confirm that migrants, including those in the country illegally, are being allowed to remain in high schools up to the age of 22, placing adult individuals into classrooms with minors. What is being justified under the banner of “education access” has effectively created a loophole where grown adults can legally sit alongside teenage students. Yet another example of Democrats prioritizing open borders above all else.

What could go wrong? In Fairfax County, a 19-year-old migrant has been accused of sexually assaulting multiple female classmates. These young girls were assaulted in the confines of their school, a place that should be a safe haven. Our children are no longer protected by the law. In fact, this new legislation outright puts children in danger and denies students the ability to learn in a safe environment. Even unvetted migrants who do not have proper documentation are permitted to attend high school in Virginia so long as they claim to be under 22. Any grown, able-bodied, working-age man can now collect government benefits under the guise of desiring a high school diploma.

Virginia lawmakers are actively moving to codify policies that ensure access to public education regardless of immigration status. The state receives funding for ESL programs, and open border policies are emboldened. Despite the molestation charges and obvious risks, lawmakers in Virginia are not concerned about the safety of children.

Parents cannot pick up their children from school without presenting proper ID and signing waivers. They cannot even walk inside the school without going directly to the main office where they are vetted. Now, schools are being asked to simply accept stated ages and backgrounds at face value while permitting ANY semi-youthful presenting individual to attend classes. You are effectively placing unverified adults into daily contact with minors and hoping nothing goes wrong. These migrant students will likely be older than the teachers in many classrooms. No serious institution would operate this way, yet this is now being normalized by the far-left who are using children as political social experiments.

Schools are supposed to be controlled environments where minors learn among peers. Now, children will be placed in proximity to adults whose backgrounds, histories, and intentions are completely unknown. No parent sends their child to school expecting that the system has quietly redefined who belongs in that environment. The Democrats are effectively weaponizing public schools, endangering children, and forcing taxpayers to foot the bill. What horrors must occur before this law is repealed?

Parents send their children to school under the assumption that it is a controlled, safe environment. You cannot maintain a functioning society if people no longer trust its institutions to provide basic safety.

What Iran is doing right now is something we have seen repeatedly throughout history whenever a currency begins to die. Governments start issuing larger and larger banknotes because the existing denominations no longer function in daily life. This took place in the Weimar Republic hyperinflation, where trillion-mark notes were printed, and again in Zimbabwe hyperinflation, where 100 trillion dollar notes became commonplace. The pattern is always the same. The currency loses purchasing power, prices rise uncontrollably, and instead of fixing the underlying problem, governments simply add more zeros. Iran introducing a 10 million rial note is the same historical signal that the currency is worthless.

The introduction of a 10 million rial banknote, now the highest denomination in the country’s history, is being presented as a practical measure to “facilitate transactions.” In reality, it is an admission that the currency itself has failed. When a nation must print larger and larger notes just to keep commerce functioning, that is not stability, it is a monetary breakdown.

The new 10 million rial note is reportedly worth roughly $7 USD at current exchange rates. A “million” denomination has become meaningless. People no longer think in terms of value but in terms of survival. The numbers grow larger, but purchasing power collapses.

The reality on the ground confirms this collapse in confidence. The Iranian rial is now trading around 1.4 to 1.6 million per US dollar on the open market, levels that reflect a dramatic erosion in trust. At the time of the 1979 revolution, the exchange rate was roughly 70 rials per dollar, meaning the currency has lost tens of thousands of times its value over time. Even in the past year alone, the decline has accelerated, showing that this is not a slow deterioration but a rapid phase of collapse.

Official figures place inflation near 48–50%, with food prices rising even faster. This is where the destruction becomes visible to the average person. Prices rise faster than wages, savings are wiped out, and the middle class disappears. When you combine a collapsing currency with inflation approaching 50%, what you are really seeing is purchasing power being annihilated. People are not becoming poorer because they earn less. They are becoming poorer because their money no longer holds value.

What is even more telling is the government’s response. Before introducing the 10 million note, they rolled out a 5 million rial note worth only a few dollars. First, the denominations increase incrementally, then they accelerate as confidence disappears. These are all clear signs of a failed currency.

There have long been reports of people rushing to withdraw cash, fearing further currency weakness and potential restrictions. The public knows their currency is worthless. People have withdrawn whatever they could, spent it quickly, or converted it into hard assets or foreign currency.

The underlying cause here is not mysterious. Iran has been financing deficits through money creation for years while facing sanctions and internal corruption. This combination destroys confidence in both the government and the currency. Printing money does not create wealth. It simply dilutes what already exists.

When governments lose control of their finances, they always turn to the printing press. But printing money does not solve the problem. The introduction of a 10 million rial note is not a solution. It is a symptom. Iran is now in a phase where the currency is no longer trusted, and  the entire economic system is at risk.

QUESTION: How is it possible that Trump was not briefed on the fact that Iran would attack the Gulf States when you pointed out Iran is Shia and the others are Sunni, and shutting down the Strait of Hormuz would not bring down the West without attacking the production as you yourself said they would do? Even Socrates warned of a Double Directional Change in Saudi Arabia in March. Are you sources far better than the CIA? Why do they not use you?

Sam

ANSWER: I cannot image that the CIA et al would not have anticipated that. Saudi Arabia has been the enemy of Iran, which was why they were cutting deals with Israel and UAE even held military exercises with Israel. You have to be completely ignorant of the Middle East not to have known this outcome. Since one tanker and that is just a rounding error. Attack the refineries and not you bring the world to its knees.

I knew that the Neocons were using Netanyahu to manipulate Trump for he assumed he was responding to a head of state when in fact he grew up in Philadelphia and hung out with the Neocons. I know of a private phone call in which Netanyahu manipulated Trump, stressing that he could “make history” by toppling the Ayatollah regime and taking revenge for Iranian efforts to assassinate him, which was central in Trump’s decision to strike when he did.

It appears that Trump was not fully briefed because the Neocons wanted this war. Yet, the intelligence community is now covering their ass claiming Trump was brief on the fact that Tehran would likely seek to close the economically vital Strait of Hormuz. That I can confirm. As Reuters reported that pre-war intelligence assessments did not say that Iran’s response was “a guarantee, but ‌it certainly was on the list of potential outcomes.” This is clearly a cover-your-ass position.

As far as claiming that the war was over “in the first hour” was a public declaration he made himself, not a claim derived from an official intelligence or military briefing. He appears to have come to that conclusion from video clips of blowing up things in Iran.

The computer has shown this war in everything from interest rates, holding of US debt, to all of the arrays on the Gulf States aside from the oil markets, commodities, and the war cycle. Our War Index targeted March last November with rising volatility from January into April ’26 where we do have Panic Cycles in many markets. The second array is the current one showing a Directional Change in March ’26 escalating into April with a Panic Cycle in July. As far as the CIA sources, they are informants. My are economic.