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.

What is unfolding in the UK bond market right now is not about inflation alone, and it is not simply about interest rates. This is the type of move that signals a shift in confidence, and once that begins, it feeds directly into liquidity conditions across the entire financial system.

UK 10-year gilt yields have surged to roughly 4.9%, the highest level since the 2008 financial crisis, while shorter-term yields have also spiked sharply as markets rapidly shifted from expecting rate cuts to pricing in multiple hikes. At the same time, government borrowing is coming in far worse than expected, with a £14.3 billion deficit in February alone and total borrowing still running above £125 billion for the fiscal year. The UK now plans to issue roughly £250 billion in new gilts while already facing over £100 billion in annual interest costs, and that is the part that begins to destabilize the system when yields rise.

The explanation being offered is inflation driven by rising energy prices as the Middle East conflict disrupts supply, with oil moving above $100 and even spiking toward $119. The Bank of England itself has acknowledged that this shock will push inflation higher again and that monetary policy cannot control the source of that inflation because it is coming from global energy markets.

When yields rise this quickly, it reflects a demand for higher compensation to hold that debt, and that is a capital flow issue. Investors are reassessing risk, and once that process begins, it does not remain contained to government bonds. This ties directly into what we just saw with the Bank of England quietly proposing changes to ensure banks can actually access liquidity during a crisis. They are preparing for rapid outflows, and at the same time the government is facing rising borrowing costs.

As yields rise, the consequences move through the economy very quickly. Mortgage rates rise, corporate borrowing costs increase, and refinancing becomes more difficult. The UK is already facing weak growth, and higher energy costs are reducing real income at the same time. This combination reduces consumption, increases stress on debt structures, and ultimately leads to rising defaults. That is how liquidity begins to contract.

The central bank is trapped in the middle of this. The Bank of England has held rates at 3.75% for now, but markets are already pricing in multiple increases because inflation is being driven by external forces. If they raise rates, they increase the pressure on government debt and the broader credit system. If they do not, inflation rises and confidence declines.

What makes the UK particularly vulnerable is its dependence on imported energy and its already elevated debt levels. When geopolitical events disrupt supply, the impact is immediate and severe, and capital begins to move accordingly. That is why the bond market is reacting so aggressively.

This is always how liquidity crises begin. It does not start with banks collapsing. It starts in the sovereign debt market. That is where confidence is priced first. Once government debt comes under pressure, it moves into the banking system, then into private credit, and finally into the real economy. Liquidity is not created by central banks. It is created by confidence, and when that confidence begins to decline, capital moves.

What is unfolding in Slovakia right now is being described as “fuel tourism,” but that term itself is misleading because it suggests something abnormal when in reality this is exactly how markets are supposed to function when governments distort pricing. When diesel is cheaper in one country than another, people will cross the border to buy it.

Slovakia is now moving to stop this behavior by allowing higher diesel prices for foreign drivers and limiting how much fuel can be purchased, after Prime Minister Robert Fico admitted that in some northern regions near Poland, gas stations had “literally dried up” due to cross-border demand. The government has introduced caps on fuel purchases and allowed differentiated pricing based on license plates.

The real cause is not Polish drivers but distorted energy pricing across Europe, which has been building for years and is now being exposed by geopolitical events. Slovakia had artificially lower diesel prices, while neighboring countries had higher prices, and that gap created the incentive for cross-border demand. When governments interfere with pricing, they create imbalances, and those imbalances always attract movement of capital or consumption.

The disruption of Russian crude flows through Ukraine has created supply stress across Central Europe, forcing countries like Slovakia to rely on reserves and alternative sources while prices remain volatile. This is not a localized issue but part of a broader fragmentation of energy supply chains across Europe driven by sanctions, war, and policy decisions that have removed stable supply in favor of politically acceptable alternatives.

What makes this situation more revealing is that Ukraine itself has played a direct role in exacerbating the problem. Zelensky moved to restrict the transit of Russian oil through Ukrainian pipelines, which directly impacted Slovakia and Hungary, both of which rely heavily on that supply through the Druzhba pipeline system. These countries were not aligned with cutting off their own energy lifeline, yet they were forced into the situation by Brussels. Instead of protecting the interests of its own member states, the European Union sided with Ukraine, effectively supporting policies that undermined the energy security of Slovakia and Hungary while expecting them to absorb the economic consequences.

This is where the internal contradictions of the European Union become clear. You cannot claim to operate as a unified economic bloc while allowing external political objectives to override the basic energy needs of member states. When Brussels supports policies that harm certain members for the sake of a broader geopolitical strategy, it exposes fractures within the system that will not remain contained.

What you are seeing now is the collision between political decisions and market reality. Instead of allowing prices to normalize and supply chains to stabilize, governments are trying to prevent the natural response of consumers by imposing restrictions. They are treating the symptom rather than the cause. When stations run out of fuel, it is not because consumers behaved irrationally but because pricing signals were distorted and supply was constrained.

This is exactly what I have said repeatedly about price controls. You cannot manipulate price without manipulating behavior. If you hold prices artificially low, you create excess demand, and when you try to suppress that demand, you create shortages.

Fuel tourism is simply the market correcting a pricing distortion. You cannot have a unified “European market” with fragmented pricing, and you cannot maintain free movement while imposing selective restrictions. Eventually, these contradictions surface.

The deeper issue is energy dependency. Europe has deliberately moved away from stable long-term energy relationships while increasing reliance on volatile global markets. When supply disruptions occur, there is no buffer, and prices become unstable.

Hungary also imposed fuel caps. Each country in Europe is attempting to manage the same problem in isolation, but they’re expected to act in unison. The entire concept of the euro is chaotic, and now we are witnessing a structural breakdown of coherent energy policy across Europe.

Despite her enthusiasm for sending other people's children to the frontlines of war, Ursula von der Leyen laughs at the idea of her own children serving in the military. ? pic.twitter.com/HcgyMK1AMI

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) March 23, 2026

There is a video circulating of Ursula von der Leyen laughing at the idea of her own children serving in the military, and whether people choose to dismiss it or not, it reflects something far deeper than a single moment. It exposes the widening divide between those who advocate for war and those who are expected to fight it.

I have said repeatedly that the neocons pushing for conflict are never the ones who bear the consequences. They sit in offices far away from the conflict and treat war as if it were a board game. The bloodshed is of no bother to these warmongers.

Now we see Europe once again moving toward policies that expand their place in Ukraine’s war. Germany is even taking steps toward drafting women, framing it as equality, but it is not about equality. It is about manpower. They are prepared to wipe out an entire generation.

Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk had a conversation on the topic of drafting women back in 2024. “It’s totally immoral,” Carlson said on the subject. “And then I thought, ‘Wait a second, I thought we had a military and a police force — for that matter — in order to protect our women and children.’ That was the whole point of it. I mean, that’s why we have a military is to keep foreigners from hurting our women and children. That’s why we send men to die for their women, our women whom we revere and respect, and to the extent we’re willing to die for them. And so, for sending women to go fight our wars, that — first of all, that’s not, you know, that’s not a liberation movement. That’s a kind of slavery, and it’s totally wrong.”

Who are they pretending to protect at this point? Neocons are COWARDS. History was shaped by leaders like Julius Caesar or Napoleon who actually stood on the battlefield with their men, shared the risks, and led from the front rather than from behind a desk. Today’s political class expects others to fight, bleed, and die for decisions they will never physically face themselves, which is why the public increasingly sees them not as leaders but as cowards who demand sacrifice from others while exempting their own families from the very dangers they promote.

Governments are no longer concerned with public resistance. They are preparing policies based on their plans for a prolonged war, not consent. Von der Leyen’s response was public—imagine how they speak about us behind closed doors?

President Donald Trump on Monday said the United States has engaged in “very strong talks” with Iran and reached “major points of agreement” that could end the war, which Iranian officials have firmly denied.He then claimed that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner spoke with a leader in the Iranian regime on Sunday and would continue talks by phone on Monday.

“They want very much to make a deal. We’d like to make a deal, too.”

Trump added that if negotiations fall apart,  “we’ll just keep bombing our little hearts out.”

Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, on Monday said “no negotiations have been held with the US.” Iran’s foreign ministry also denied Trump’s claims about negotiations, according to Iranian state-run media.

In response to Trump’s threats, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said that the conflict and its impact on Hormuz has threatened global energy security as well as China’s oil supplies. He warned that Trump’s “use of force will only lead to a vicious cycle.” He added:

“If the war expands further and the situation deteriorates again, the entire region could be plunged into an uncontrollable situation.”

Beijing is a partner of Iran, which has been the victim of this war of aggression launched at the insistance of Netanyahu. China has, however, objected to Tehran’s retaliatory strikes against Gulf States housing US military bases, which has triggered a widening regional war and threatens a major energy and debt crisis.

The real concern is that Trump realized that bombing their energy sector would only result in a retaliation against the Gulf States taking out their production capacity and refineries. Doing that will send oil prices dramatically higher for this is not sinking a mere tanker which is no more than a rounding error in global finance. Take out the production leaves a structure crisis more akin to the ’70s.

Moreover, there is also a fear here is that Trump is not a man of his word and he has turned and bombed in the middle of negotiations. The concern here is that this is a story to delay any bombing in 48 hours without admitted that there was no negotiation raising fears that he could then just claim the negotiations fell apart and then bomb then next week.

The grandfather of Neocons after John McCain died, became Senator Lindsey Graham, who is now boasting about this war with Iran with zero comprehension of how this war impacts the world economy unlike that of Ukraine or even Taiwan. He has expressed support for the U.S. invasion and even seizing Iran’s Kharg Island. Of course, he speaks from the typical neocon arrogance that stems from their delusion that the US has the biggest military and that means they are invincible.

He has zero understanding of the world financial markets and never considers that the Dow Jones Industrials can still fall to the 43,900 level even by next week. Such a move could also send crude oil to $175 by next week.

PRIVATE BLOG – Gold & the Liquidity Crisis

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/

QUESTION: You have provided a real history of this constant threat that Iran will have a nuclear weapon, with Netanyahu’s personal obsession with attacking Iran for 40 years. My question is what is the difference that Iran would have a nuclear weapon and that of North Korea or Pakistan? They have nuclear weapons, but that does not mean they use them. It seems to me that the threat means that Netanyahu cannot invade Iran. Am I missing something?

RK

ANSWER: No. This seems to be an obsession of Netanyahu’s. Iran would not suddenly use it to attack Israel, for they know they would be annihilated in return. That is why Pakistan and North Korea do not use them. They are more of a deterrent. You could have done the same to North Korea to “prevent” it from developing a nuke. I have zero respect for Netanyahu, and I believe he is the most dangerous threat to Israel.

Jerome Powell finally said out loud what the revisions have been quietly showing for months. During his March 18 press conference, Powell said that “effectively there’s zero net job creation in the private sector” over roughly the past six months after adjusting for what Fed staff view as overstatement in the payroll data. He added that the economy appears to be in a “zero employment growth equilibrium,” which he tied to virtually nonexistent labor-force growth. Those comments came directly from the Fed chair, not from some critic on the sidelines, and they confirm the broader point I have made repeatedly that the headline payroll numbers are often political theater until the revisions arrive and reveal the truth.

This is precisely the problem with how governments sell economic data. The first number is always used for propaganda, while the revised number is where reality begins to emerge. The official February jobs report showed payrolls falling by 92,000, while December was revised down from a gain of 48,000 to a loss of 17,000 and January was trimmed to 126,000. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also said December and January combined were 69,000 lower than previously reported, and earlier benchmark revisions had already reduced 2025 payroll growth materially. Powell was not inventing a new concern. He was simply acknowledging that the labor market has been far weaker than the government wanted to admit.

If you step back from the monthly headlines, the underlying data has been deteriorating for some time. JOLTS showed January openings rising to 6.946 million, but hiring was still only 5.294 million and the hires rate held at 3.3%. Reuters noted that total hiring in 2025 fell by 1.5 million to 63.0 million. Weekly claims remain relatively low, which is why the unemployment rate has not exploded, but low layoffs do not mean strong growth. They simply mean companies are hesitant to fire aggressively while also refusing to hire.

ADP has been telling a similar story. Private employers added only 22,000 jobs in January and 63,000 in February, hardly the sort of numbers you would expect if the economy were booming. Even Powell admitted that a good part of the labor slowdown reflects weaker labor-force growth due to lower immigration and participation. In other words, the economy is stagnant.

I have written many times that governments always hide behind statistics until the cycle forces the truth into the open. This is why I have been skeptical of the jobs numbers for years, because they are heavily model-driven, politically celebrated on release day, and then quietly revised when nobody is looking. BLS even changed its CES birth-death methodology beginning with January 2026 to modify first preliminary estimates, which shows just how dependent these reports are on assumptions about business formation and death rather than hard counts in real time. Meanwhile, analysis based on QCEW tax records, which many regard as the gold standard because it is built from unemployment insurance filings, has suggested the BLS materially overstated job growth during 2025.

Powell still described the economy as “solid,” but he also conceded that job gains have remained low and that the labor force is no longer expanding in the way the country has historically relied upon. When the Fed chair is openly admitting there is effectively no private-sector job creation, that is not a minor footnote. That is the sort of statement that appears at the end of a trend, not the beginning.

The bigger problem is that this comes while inflation is still above target. Powell said headline PCE was about 2.8% and core PCE about 3.0%, while the Fed kept rates at 3.5% to 3.75% and projected unemployment at 4.4% by year end. That means the Fed is trapped. It cannot aggressively ease if inflation is still elevated, and it cannot pretend the labor market is healthy if job creation is flat to negative beneath the revisions. This is how central banks lose control, because they are always fighting the last problem while the next one is already in motion.

What Powell said matters because it strips away the fantasy that everything is fine so long as the unemployment rate has not surged. A labor market with little hiring, downward revisions, weak private payroll growth, and nonexistent labor-force expansion is not a healthy market. It is a market marking time. Governments always celebrate the first estimate and bury the revision because confidence management has become the real product they sell. Powell just admitted that the product is no longer matching reality.

California lawmakers are now advancing a measure that would allow race-based preferences in financial aid, which is remarkable when you consider that the state constitution has explicitly prohibited such practices since 1996. Proposition 209 banned the state from granting “preferential treatment” based on race in public education, employment, and contracting, yet once again, we see politicians attempting to work around that restriction rather than respect it.

The proposal is tied to broader reparations efforts and would reintroduce preferential treatment in education through financial aid rather than admissions alone. This follows the 2023 Supreme Court decision that race-based admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause, which was expected to settle the issue legally. Instead, we are seeing the continuation of the same objective under different labels.

This is exactly what I have said repeatedly about DEI. These policies were not abandoned but repackaged. Whether it is affirmative action, diversity initiatives, equity programs, or now financial aid adjustments, the objective remains the same.

Every time government interferes with how resources are distributed, it distorts outcomes. The Department of Justice has already indicated that race-based scholarships and similar programs may violate federal law. That highlights the growing conflict between state-level policy and federal enforcement. Trump was unable to simply dissolve DEI programs when there are far-left politicians ruling at the state level.

DEI has effectively become a mechanism for redistribution and race-based division. Opportunities are no longer granted based on merit. Redistribution merely reallocates existing opportunity within a system that is no longer expanding. Not only is it racist, but it is detrimental to the system at large.

California already attempted to repeal its ban on race-based preferences in 2020, and voters rejected that effort. That should have been a clear signal. Instead, policymakers are pursuing the same objective through alternative channels. When merit is replaced by political allocation, productivity declines and the system weakens over time.

COMMENT: Hello Martin

The outbreak has been centered in Kent and largely tied to a university and a nightclub event, with roughly 27 to 31 total cases and two deaths reported, and while officials have described the clustering as unusual, the broader context is that the UK typically records ongoing cases each year with England reporting roughly 378 cases in the 2024 to 2025 period, meaning this is a known bacterial disease rather than anything new or emerging.

What is actually happening is a localized outbreak of meningococcal disease, primarily the MenB strain, which has existed for decades and tends to spread in close-contact environments. It is not airborne in the way respiratory viruses are, but instead spreads through direct contact. Despite that, the response has begun to follow a familiar pattern where authorities contact tens of thousands of people, expand vaccination programs, and distribute thousands of antibiotic treatments. Universities move activities online and warnings are issued about travel potentially spreading the illness, all of which begins to mirror the behavioral response cycle seen during COVID even though the scale and transmission entirely different.

The comparison is not about the disease itself but about how the situation is being framed and managed, because during COVID, the key issue was not just the virus but the fear-mongering propaganda through constant headlines and policy escalation. Fear is a powerful tool.

When you look at the actual risk assessments, health authorities have stated that the overall risk remains low and that the disease is not easily transmissible. There is already an established vaccine that is effective against the strain involved, which further reinforces that this is a contained public health issue rather than a systemic threat. The media narrative focuses on the most alarming aspects, such as deaths, and uses language like “explosive” or “unprecedented,” which becomes misleading when removed from the statistical facts. Governments use public fear to seize more control, and the cycle repeats.

From the perspective of the Economic Confidence Model, this type of reaction aligns with periods where confidence is declining and governments expand their role in managing outcomes, since public health provides a mechanism through which intervention can be justified, particularly when uncertainty and fear are running high.