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.

The Banco Central do Brasil has raised gold’s share of reserves from 3.55% to 7.19% in just one year, effectively doubling its exposure and making gold the second-largest reserve asset after the US dollar, while total reserves stand at approximately $358.23 billion and the dollar’s share has declined to about 72%, marking a record low. This is not a marginal adjustment or routine diversification, it is a structural repositioning that reflects a growing unease with sovereign debt markets.

When a central bank reduces dollar exposure while increasing gold holdings, it is not acting randomly but responding to a shift in confidence, and this aligns directly with the broader trend we are witnessing globally as central banks collectively purchased roughly 863 tonnes of gold in 2025 and are expected to remain strong buyers into 2026. The driving forces behind this are not inflation in the traditional sense, but geopolitical fragmentation, the weaponization of reserves, and the realization that sovereign debt levels are no longer sustainable without continued central bank intervention.

Brazil’s move mirrors what we have been warning about for years, which is that capital flows, not trade balances, dictate the strength of currencies, and once confidence begins to erode in government debt, that capital begins to migrate into assets that are not someone else’s liability. Gold fulfills that role because it cannot be printed, defaulted on, or frozen by a foreign government, and this becomes critical in a world where sanctions and financial restrictions are increasingly used as political tools.

The significance of Brazil’s decision is that it is not repatriating gold like France or Germany, but instead reallocating reserves in a way that quietly reduces dependence on the dollar without triggering market disruption. This is often how such transitions begin, as they unfold incrementally until they reach a tipping point. This is not about abandoning the dollar overnight, it is about gradually preparing for a world where confidence in sovereign debt is no longer taken for granted.

The push toward digital currency is being framed as innovation and efficiency, but when you strip away the marketing language, what is unfolding is a structural transformation of the financial system that shifts control away from individuals and concentrates it within governments and central banks. The Bank for International Settlements has confirmed that more than 90% of central banks are now actively researching, developing, or piloting central bank digital currencies, which is not coincidence or experimentation but a coordinated global direction. This aligns directly with what I have been warning, that when governments face a sovereign debt crisis they will turn to mechanisms that allow them to monitor and control capital flows because they cannot solve the debt problem through traditional means.

In the United States, more than 95% of transactions are already digital in some form, whether through credit cards, debit systems, ACH transfers, or mobile payment platforms, which means the infrastructure for surveillance is already largely in place. Cash has not been eliminated yet, but it has been marginalized, and that is the first step because once transactions become digital, every movement of money creates a permanent record. Governments already have the ability to access financial data through banks, but a central bank digital currency removes the intermediary entirely and places that visibility directly within a centralized system controlled by the state.

This is where the real shift takes place because a CBDC is not simply a digital version of existing currency, it is a programmable financial instrument. That means money itself can be controlled, restricted, or directed according to policy decisions. Transactions could be approved or denied in real time, spending could be limited to certain categories, and funds could even be given expiration dates to force consumption. These are not theoretical concerns as these capabilities have already been discussed openly in central bank reports and demonstrated in pilot programs around the world, including China’s digital yuan, which integrates payment systems with state oversight.

The connection to the sovereign debt crisis is critical because governments are reaching a point where they cannot sustain spending without either raising taxes, inflating the currency, or imposing controls on capital. Digital currency provides a mechanism to do all three simultaneously. Real-time taxation becomes possible because transactions can be monitored instantly, eliminating the lag between earning and reporting income. Capital controls can be enforced automatically by restricting transfers, preventing withdrawals, or limiting how funds are used. Inflation can be managed politically by directing spending into specific sectors or suppressing activity in others. This is the level of control that governments have never had before, and it changes the entire structure of the financial system.

The transition is being rolled out gradually because it cannot be imposed overnight without resistance. Digital systems will continue to coexist with cash and traditional banking for a period of time, but the direction is clear. As digital adoption increases, incentives will be introduced to encourage usage while restrictions on cash will slowly expand. Limits on cash transactions, reporting requirements, and regulatory pressure on banks are all part of this process. Eventually, participation in the digital system becomes not a choice but a necessity because alternatives are either restricted or eliminated.

There is also a geopolitical dimension to this shift because digital currencies can be used to bypass existing financial networks such as SWIFT, allowing countries to conduct transactions outside the traditional Western-dominated system. At the same time, within domestic economies, these systems give governments the ability to enforce policy at the individual level. This creates a dual structure where digital currencies are used externally to avoid sanctions and internally to impose control, and that combination is what makes this development so significant.

What is rarely discussed openly is how this ties into the broader expansion of surveillance. Financial transactions do not exist in isolation, they are connected to identity, location, and behavior. Once money is fully digital and centrally managed, it becomes possible to integrate financial data with other forms of monitoring, creating a comprehensive view of individual activity. This is where the line between financial regulation and social control begins to blur, because the same system that tracks spending can also be used to enforce compliance with policies that extend beyond economics.

The issue ultimately comes down to control rather than convenience because while digital systems offer efficiency, they also eliminate anonymity. Cash has always provided a degree of financial privacy because transactions could occur without leaving a trace. Once that disappears, every economic action becomes visible and potentially subject to oversight. That fundamentally alters the relationship between individuals and the state because financial independence is replaced with conditional access to money.

When you look at this within the context of the sovereign debt crisis, the direction becomes clear. Governments cannot allow capital to move freely when confidence begins to decline, and digital currency provides the mechanism to manage that risk. The ability to track, restrict, and direct financial activity ensures that capital remains within the system and under control. This is not about modernization, it is about maintaining authority in a system that is under increasing strain.

The transition is already underway, and once it reaches a critical mass, reversing it will not be simple because the infrastructure will be embedded in everyday life. The real question is not whether digital currency will be adopted, but how it will be used once it becomes the dominant form of money, because that will determine whether it serves as a tool of efficiency or a mechanism of control.

QUESTION: Do you think the blockade will be effective in bringing Iran to collapse? You also said that Iran is winning. Could you explain that?

Will

ANSWER: Regardless of how you might feel about the Iran war, as I previously stated, when I was called in to give me a briefing on Russia, I was told that we would NOT be at war with Russia – it would be with China. As they say, you only know who your friends are in times of trouble. This war has revealed that our supposed allies are really enemies waiting for the opportunity to stab this upstart colony called America in the back. In reality, they were always enemies, jealous that they lost their power to this fledgling upstart. The United States has only been feared – not admired.

Everyone has an opinion. That does not make one right and another wrong. Opinion requires experience – not second-guessing. To think for one minute that this blockade will force Iran to collapse and yield to everything demanded by the Trump administration is rather naive. It is a desperate effort on the Trump Administration because they know that they cannot bomb Iran to end the Persian Civilization. What nobody seems to address is the one major point of Iran – a US guarantee that Iran will NOT be attacked again by the rogue Netanyahu. That is something Trump cannot deliver for Netanyahu, who is also up for election, and he, too, needs a victory. As mentioned, there have been open discussions in Israel about nuking the granite tunnels the Iranians have dug because no bunker-buster bomb can possibly destroy their nuclear program.

Turkish Straits

Then there is what is being presented as absurd, that Iran wants a toll to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Every other seaway that is a chokepoint, ships must pay a toll from the manmade Panama Canal and the Suez Canal, and between Canada & USA in the Saint Lawrence Seaway. The Turkish Straits are a unique legal exception to the principle of free passage through natural waterways. Comprising the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, they form a critical maritime chokepoint connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. Under the 1936 Montreux Convention, Türkiye has the authority to regulate transits and collect fees, which are legally defined as “navigation service costs” rather than tolls on the passage itself. Iran can do the same and not call it a “toll” but “navigation service costs.”

Then an embargo on Iran is an embargo on China, impacting their national security. China must know what I was told in that briefing, which means this is also an indirect confrontation with China. This war has seriously depleted the US capability to wage war since it relies on high-tech. Our Navy has only about 33% of the number of ships the President had back in 1970. For decades, money was shifted from military to social spending, and the US became increasingly sophisticated in its weapons to offset the decline in the raw size of the force.

We have entered a new world of warfare that the vast majority are still blind to. This is a new strategy that can defeat the United States and Israel much more easily than anyone realizes. We do not even see this coming because of the one-sided reporting of the Western Press that constantly prints the Neocon propaganda.

Let’s put it this way. You and I go to war against each other. You want to pretend you are the richest and most powerful. So, you have fancy silver bullets that cost you $100 each. I have cheap copper bullets that cost me $1 each.  I can produce 100 bullets to your one. Who do you think will win in a long-drawn-out war?

US air-defense inventories have been significantly drawn down by defending Israel and its own forces from Iranian attacks, but NOT to the point of functional depletion. The U.S. still retains sizable reserves, but the pace of use has exposed a critical gap in its ability to replenish stocks quickly in a major conflict.

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
U.S. forces fired 100 to 150 interceptors (approx. 25% of its inventory) during a 12-day war in June 2025 to defend Israel against Iranian ballistic missiles. This was the most significant operational use of the system to date. Production and replenishment have been a major concern, with only 11 new interceptors produced in 2024, 12 expected in 2025, and a plan for 37 in 2026. To address the shortage, the Pentagon authorized an extra $2 billion to Lockheed Martin to replenish stocks.

Standard Missile (SM) Family (SM-2, SM-3, SM-6)
The Navy’s Standard Missiles have been heavily expended. From October 2023 to December 31, 2024, the Navy expended an estimated 168 SM-2s, 17 SM-3s, and 112 SM-6s in the Red Sea. During the 12-day 2025 war, the Navy increased its destroyer presence in the region from two to five to support Israel, further drawing on these stocks. The fleet has been expending these missiles faster than they can be replaced, with senior Navy officials describing the rate as “alarming”.

Patriot Missiles
Depletion: While specific depletion figures for the Patriot system are not detailed in the search results, it’s understood that the system has faced significant demand. The U.S. produces roughly 600 to 650 Patriot PAC-3 MSE missiles annually, but analysts warn that in a high-intensity war, even a year’s production could be consumed within weeks.

The U.S. still has significant missile stocks for now, but the strategic risk is that the US has moved to high-tech rather than normal weapons, and that has reduced the supply, increased the cost, and reduced the ability to mass-produce such weapons to replenish during a war, as we are witnessing with Iran. Fighting on multiple fronts was a central and decisive factor in the military defeats of both Napoleon and Hitler. While not the only reasons, the immense strain of splitting their forces made them vulnerable to the very thing they tried to avoid: a war of attrition fought against powerful coalitions. Both ultimately collapsed under the pressure of coordinated enemies they could no longer overwhelm with speed and decisive victories. I have warned that the way to strategically defeat even the United States is for a joint coalition of China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. Waging a war of attrition is a crippling strategy.

The military has seven THAAD systems and eight Patriot battalions, each with substantial interceptors. However, the depletion of THAAD has exposed serious vulnerabilities. The critical issue is the Replenishment Rate. The current U.S. production capacity is far too slow for a high-end conflict. It could take years to replace interceptors used in just two weeks of fighting!

Then we have the Strategic Risk. The drawdown has hollowed out U.S. defense capacity against China. Given that we are already struggling to deal with threats from Iran, how do we think we’re going to do against China?” The U.S. Sixth Fleet’s local inventory of SM-3 interceptors was nearly depleted after helping defend Israel from the October 1 Iranian missile strike.

We have strategically incurred the unsustainable cost of trying to fight a war. The economic burden is immense, to put this mildly, despite the pro-war contingent and the analysts preaching that Iran has lost. THAAD interceptors cost roughly $12.7 million each, while SM-3s range from $9 million to $12 million. By mid-April 2024, the Navy had already spent close to $1 billion on munitions defending against Houthi attacks

In short, the U.S. missile inventory may not yet be exhausted, but the recent pace of operations has revealed a dangerous gap between peacetime production rates and wartime demands.

The higher the Tech, the greater the cost, and the fewer bullets you have to fire. Knowing this is not the Achilles Heel of modern warfare. The Iranian attacks in 2025 involved tactics specifically designed to force Israel to expend its expensive air defense arsenal, leveraging an economic war of attrition. However, the 2025 war was a “two-way bleed“—while Israel was forced to fire costly interceptors, Iran’s own missile and launch infrastructure was also devastated. Iran’s approach relied on overwhelming Israel’s defenses through saturation and exploiting a massive cost asymmetry.

Iran cleverly adopted a saturation and the Economic War of Attrition. Iran’s strategy was a direct response to the layered Israeli air defense network, which includes the Iron Dome (rockets), David’s Sling (short-to-medium range missiles and drones), and the Arrow system (long-range ballistic missiles). Iran employed two specific tactics. First, by launching mass waves of threats from multiple directions (Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen), Iran aimed to overwhelm Israel’s multi-layered defenses with more targets than they could handle at once. The core of this tactic was economic warfare. Each interception by a sophisticated Israeli system costs tens or hundreds of times more than the cheap drone it destroyed.

The Iranian Shahed Drone cost was $20,000 – $50,000 A very low-tech, one-way attack drone.
The Israeli David’s Sling cost $1,000,000 per launch Interceptor for short-to-medium range threats.
Israeli Arrow 3 System $3,500,000 – $4,000,000 per interception. Exo-atmospheric interceptor for long-range ballistic missiles.

Was the Strategy Successful? The tactic was partially successful. It placed immense strategic pressure on Israel but did not achieve total victory in 2025. The financial burden on Israel was staggering. For example, during the June 2025 “12-Day War,” the combined cost of U.S. and Israeli defensive operations was between $1.48 billion and $1.58 billion. A senior Israeli official estimated a single night’s defense could cost $1-1.3 billion. Israeli intelligence warned that if attacks continued at their peak rate, Israel’s defense reserves might only last 10 to 12 days.

Iran’s cost is cheaper, but the sheer volume of attacks still costs Iran significantly, with estimates of its missile and drone expenditures ranging from $1.1 billion to $6.6 billion during the 12-day war. The U.S. and Israeli DEPLETION during the conflict also put a major dent in the U.S. inventory, which was already stressed from supporting Ukraine. The U.S. used up an estimated 14% of its global stockpile of THAAD missile interceptors in just 12 days, and at current production rates, it would take three to eight years to replenish them!

In essence, the 2025 conflict showed that while Iran’s economic-attrition strategy was a potent NEW form of warfare, it was not a silver bullet. It forced Israel to expend critical resources at an alarming rate, but the war’s kinetic phase ended with Iran’s launch infrastructure in ruins, highlighting the extreme risks of such a direct confrontation for both sides.

Iran has made a decisive and public shift towards a strategy of economic warfare and attrition. The 2025 war is now seen as a blueprint that forced a hard pivot in their approach, moving away from seeking a decisive military victory to a long-term strategy designed to bankrupt their enemies. The most tangible evidence of this shift is the staggering 10-fold increase in production of attack drones in just the seven months after the war. This industrial surge is the engine of their economic warfare, designed to overwhelm air defenses through sheer, cheap numbers.

Iran possessed an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 Shahed drones at the start of this 2026 war, with a monthly production capacity of up to 500 for sustained pressure, or over 12,000 during wartime peaks. This strategy exploits the massive cost gap, where a $35,000 drone can force the use of a $4 million Patriot missile, creating an economic calculus that is “100 times” in Iran’s favor. By forcing two interceptors per target, they accelerate the depletion of American and Israeli stockpiles.

I have been warning about the sheer stupidity of the Neocons and their arrogance that Having the Biggest Military automatically means you win. Because we Cannot win a war of attrition, this means the only weapon they will be able to deploy when they run out of bullets is nuclear.

Visa has just unveiled a new suite of artificial intelligence tools designed to overhaul how credit card disputes are handled, and once again this is being presented as a simple evolution toward efficiency and improved customer experience, yet when you step back and examine the scale of what is unfolding, this is clearly part of a much broader structural shift within the financial system toward centralization and automation.

The numbers alone should make that obvious, with Visa processing over 106 million disputes globally in 2025, representing a 35% increase since 2019, and that type of exponential growth is not something that can be resolved through incremental improvements, it requires a complete restructuring of how the system functions, which is precisely what Visa is now implementing.

They are introducing six AI-driven tools split between merchants and financial institutions, designed to intercept disputes before they even occur, automate responses, and consolidate the entire process into a unified framework where decisions are guided by network-wide data rather than individual judgment, and once you move into that framework, the human element is steadily removed and replaced by algorithmic consistency.

Every transaction, dispute, and outcome begins to follow the same predictive logic, and that is where the real transformation begins. Once behavior is standardized across a global financial network, control naturally follows.

This is exactly the progression I have warned about for years when discussing the digitization of money, because people continue to look at these developments as isolated improvements rather than understanding that they are components of a much larger system, where transactions become digital, then tracked, then analyzed, and ultimately controlled, and Visa’s expansion into predictive dispute management clearly places the system into that analytical phase moving toward control.

The introduction of AI models removes discretion. Document analysis tools that auto-generate responses eliminate interpretation, and centralized platforms that unify workflows create a single point of oversight, all of which together form the infrastructure necessary for a fully automated financial system where decisions are no longer case-by-case but system-wide.

This ties directly into what I have said about central bank digital currencies, because the real objective behind these systems has never been convenience but visibility, as governments and institutions cannot regulate or control what they cannot see, and once all transactions are processed digitally within centralized frameworks, that visibility becomes absolute.

Visa itself is not a central bank, but it operates at the core of the global payments system, and what is being constructed here is the foundational infrastructure that governments will inevitably leverage as they move toward broader monetary control systems, since a CBDC cannot function without the ability to monitor, analyze, and influence transactions in real time, and this is precisely the type of system being built.

While this is being marketed as a way to simplify disputes or improve efficiency, the broader implication is that the financial system is being transformed into a closed-loop network where every transaction is monitored, analyzed, and ultimately governed by machine logic. This is not the final stage but rather a transition toward a system where control over capital becomes increasingly centralized as confidence in traditional structures continues to decline.

The latest data confirms what has quietly been building for years, and now it is no longer anecdotal but systemic, as roughly 64% of parents with Gen Z children aged 18 to 28 say their adult kids still rely on them financially for housing, money, or basic support, while 56% of those parents admit that this arrangement is putting strain on their own finances, which means we are looking at a generational shift where adulthood itself is being delayed on a scale not seen in modern times.

This is being explained away as an economic problem, with references to high costs of living, weak entry-level wages, and housing affordability, and while those factors are real, they are not the full story because previous generations faced economic hardship as well, yet they still transitioned into independence, and what we are seeing now is not just economic pressure but a breakdown in the cultural expectation of self-sufficiency.

There is a dangerous normalization taking place where parents are no longer helping temporarily but are effectively subsidizing adult lifestyles, and in many cases this support is not minor, with studies showing parents spending well over $1,000 per month on adult children while simultaneously neglecting their own retirement savings, which is creating a cascading financial problem where one generation is undermining its own future to sustain another.

At the same time, nearly half of Gen Z adults describe their financial lives as “messy,” and many are delaying core milestones such as moving out, getting married, or establishing careers, which historically marked the transition into adulthood, and when those milestones are postponed, the entire structure of society shifts because independence is replaced with prolonged dependency.

What is particularly troubling is that this dependence is increasingly being rationalized rather than challenged, because instead of pushing young adults toward independence, the narrative has shifted to accommodating the situation indefinitely, and that is where the long-term damage occurs since cycles are driven not just by economics but by behavior.

I have said many times that when a society begins to lose its work ethic and sense of personal responsibility, it is already entering a phase of decline, because economic systems depend on individuals striving for independence and productivity, and once that incentive weakens, growth slows and stagnation follows.

This AI is getting really amazing

PRIVATE BLOG – Gold, Israel & Tactical Nukes

Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please visit Ask-Socrates.com.

https://ask-socrates.com/

PRIVATE BLOG – The Coming Cycle of Famine

Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please visit Ask-Socrates.com.

https://ask-socrates.com/

Zelensky is no different than Netanyahu. Neither one cares about anyone but themselves. The Hungary election was rigged no different than Romania. Zelensky even sent in people to stage big protests paying them with US tax payer’s spoils. He is already pushing to join NATO to wage war against Russia and will try to get NATO to stage nukes in Ukraine. Putin will respond by staging nukes in Iran.

Pro-Ukrainian factions in Brussels are celebrating Hungary’s election results. As the only sound mind trying to prevent war with Russia, they painted Viktor as an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, regularly blocking European Union initiatives to fund Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe. In his campaign’s last gasp, Viktor tried to save his country and exposed Ukraine as a corrupt faltering economy that it is.

Hungary was devastated after both World War I and World War II, though the nature of the destruction was different in each case. After WWI, the country’s “destruction” was primarily political and territorial with hyperinflation, while after WWII, it was physical and human.

Magyar is looking to rebuild Hungary’s relationship with the EU, removing one obstacle to stronger action against Russia. Magyar is a globalist and will take Hungary into World War III with Russia. He absurdly thinks a third time will be the charm.

Reports indicate that a wave of used EVs is beginning to hit the market as leases expire, forcing automakers to rethink how they handle pricing and inventory. What was once sold as the inevitable future is now a dud cause with minimal demand. When those vehicles return to the secondary market, they must compete on price, performance, and practicality, not ideology. That is where the cracks begin to show.

This ties directly into what I have warned about with government attempts to force economic outcomes through policy. The Biden administration pushed aggressively toward electrification under the banner of climate policy and Net Zero, but this was never purely about the environment. It was about directing capital, restructuring industry, and attempting to control long-term consumption patterns. The problem is that markets do not respond to mandates the way politicians expect.

Nearly 4,000 US car dealers warned the Biden Administration that consumer demand would not keep pace with supply. You cannot force consumers into a product they are not ready to adopt, especially in an environment where the cost of living is already rising.

Electric vehicles still account for only about 7–8% of total US vehicle sales, yet federal policy aimed to push that figure toward 50% or more by 2032 through emissions rules that effectively function as mandates. At the same time, EVs remain significantly more expensive, with average transaction prices roughly $8,000 higher than comparable gas vehicles.

Government attempted to accelerate this transition through incentives and mandates. The Inflation Reduction Act introduced tax credits of up to $7,500 per vehicle, effectively subsidizing purchases to stimulate demand. Meanwhile, federal policy called for the entire government fleet to transition to zero-emission vehicles by 2035, impacting hundreds of thousands of vehicles.

You can already see the early signs of that correction in the used EV market. As more vehicles come off lease, prices are under pressure because supply is increasing faster than demand. Automakers are now adjusting strategies, trying to manage resale values and prevent a collapse in pricing. This is the same pattern we have seen in other sectors. When supply is artificially expanded through policy, it eventually overwhelms real demand.

The used car market in general is far beneath the levels witnessed in 2022. EVs are far more difficult to offload. Industry estimates show that more than 300,000 electric vehicles will come off lease in 2026 alone, with projections rising toward 500,000 or more as we move into 2027. This is a surge of supply that the market must absorb whether demand is ready or not.

New EV sales have already dropped 28% year-over-year in early 2026, while used EV sales have risen 12%, reaching nearly 93,500 units in a single quarter. Pricing confirms that shift. Used EV prices have fallen dramatically, in some cases dropping as much as 40% over the past year, and are now within roughly $1,300 of comparable gasoline vehicles. That is a market adjusting to oversupply. When prices fall that quickly, it reflects a mismatch between production and real demand.

Cost, convenience, infrastructure, and reliability all matter more than political objectives. The government will always fail when it attempts to artificially stimulate demand.