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.

“Great nations do not fight endless wars,” Donald Trump said during his campaign when highlighting his “Americas First” message. Trump explicitly promised to maintain peace and keep American troops out of foreign wars. American blood has been shed in the Middle East once more amid Operation Epic Fury. Could this escalating war cause MAGA to fracture?

“We are not going to war with Iran. We are going to make sure they never have a nuclear weapon,” Trump once said. I’ve mentioned that I was particularly impressed with Donald Trump after visiting Mar-a-Lago. He was the first politician to voice genuine concern over American lives lost fighting endless wars. “After 19 years, it is time for them to police their own country. Bring our soldiers back home but closely watch what is going on and strike with a thunder like never before, if necessary!” he posted in 2020. Trump later vowed to bring our troops home by Christmas of that year.

The man who once remorsefully spoke of dreading watching mothers mourning their sons and daughters has been compromised, infiltrated by the neocons. He admitted that the US should have never been in Iraq or Afghanistan. He did not troops in Syria. Trump clearly acknowledged that the Middle East has endless generations of feuding and rivalry that cannot be stopped. “Peace in the Middle East” cannot be attained through warfare, and truthfully, it simply cannot be attained because of the deep rooted ideology that has been passed on throughout thousands of years.

The neocons fantasized of a 6-week war in Iraq back in 2003, but US troops remained on the ground until December 2011. The strike on Iran is expected to last “four to give weeks,” according to Washington officials who say they are on a “clear, decisive mission.” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said it will take “some time” but “not years…not an endless war.”

Americans voted for peace and nationalism after four years of globalist policies. Trump has shot himself in the foot. Exactly on target with the ECM, 2026 is emerging as a major geopolitical turning point. The model has been warning that this year would mark a shift into a broader phase of instability. What we are witnessing is not is cyclical.

The computer is indicating that pressures will intensify into 2027, where we face a Panic Cycle that historically coincides with sudden escalation or an external shock event. Panic Cycles do not require full-scale world war but they dramatically increase the probability of geopolitical confrontation and capital flight. The risk is that regional conflicts merge, drawing in larger powers either directly or through proxies.

That escalation phase then carries forward into 2028, which stands as a Yearly Panic Cycle, which is a far more significant inflection point. When Panic Cycles align at both the shorter and longer time frames, the probability of systemic disruption rises sharply. This is where sovereign debt stress, currency instability, military confrontation, and political realignment can converge.

The key takeaway: 2026 is the pivot. 2027 introduces volatility and escalation risk. 2028 represents the potential systemic break.

When analysts talk about Iran, they too often reduce it to politics, nukes, or ideology. But any real understanding of the strategic challenge must begin with geography. Iran is not Iraq; it is not Afghanistan. It is a vast land mass defined by mountain ranges that have shaped its history, defense, and resistance to outside powers for millennia.

Iran covers roughly 1.65 million square kilometers, making it more than three times the size of Iraq and significantly larger than Afghanistan. Its internal geography isn’t open plains, but a series of rugged, interconnected mountain systems with high interior basins and plateaus wedged between them. The two dominant ranges, the Zagros in the west and the Alborz in the north, surround the country’s heartland, rise above 3,000 meters, and in places top 4,000 meters, creating what military theorists have called a mountain fortress

Afghanistan is frequently cited as the quintessential “graveyard of empires,” and its Hindu Kush mountains create an extraordinarily hostile combat environment. But even Afghanistan’s mountains are more accessible valleys and corridors. Iran’s mountains differ in scale and in their relationship to population centers. Iran’s population is concentrated in mountainous basins, not distant from the terrain that conceals them. Cities like Tehran, nestled under the Alborz, and countless towns embedded in the Zagros foothills, are naturally insulated. This gives defenders the ability to move, regroup, and conceal logistics under terrain that challenges air and ground surveillance.

Contrast that with Iraq, where the terrain quickly transitions to flat plains like the Tigris-Euphrates basin, which historically have facilitated rapid warfare. Iraq’s internal highlands exist, but they are limited and do not envelop critical centers. That is why during the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion, coalition forces could maneuver long distances rapidly. In Iran, such maneuver corridors are constrained by elevation, narrow passes, and terrain that favors defensive preparations and ambush.

Terrain matters because it dictates strategy. In Afghanistan, invaders struggled precisely because the rugged landscape broke lines of communication and allowed insurgents to melt into valleys and mountainsides. Iran’s mountains are broader and more extensive, giving defenders even more strategic options: natural choke points, deep interior lines of retreat, and countless niches for irregular or asymmetric resistance. Iran’s military planners understand this well, which is why defensive tunnel networks and surface-to-air missile sites have been deployed to exploit the topography.

Historically, the mountains of Iran have served as a barrier to sovereignty. They helped defend against Arab, Mongol, Ottoman, and Russian incursions over centuries. They served as the backbone of resistance during the Iran–Iraq War, where Iranian forces leveraged rugged terrain to negate some of Iraq’s technical advantages.

So when policymakers today speculate about quick strikes and a six-week regime decapitation, they are ignoring a fundamental constant: mountains favor the defender.

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna believe it would be “fair” to confiscate trillions from wealthy Americans to redistribute as they see fit. The Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act would impose a 5% annual tax on the wealth of America’s roughly 938 billionaires and is projected to raise about $4.4 trillion over ten years.

Sanders declared, “In a democratic society, we cannot tolerate 60 percent of our people living paycheck to paycheck while 938 billionaires have become $1.5 trillion richer,” arguing that the “corrupt tax code” favors the ultra-wealthy. Khanna added that “we can tax billionaires a modest amount to make sure everyone has a fair chance.” Whenever policy is driven by moral outrage rather than economic structure, you must step back and examine the unintended consequences.

A wealth tax of this magnitude targets assets, not income. That means taxing unrealized gains including paper value in stocks, private companies, real estate, and other holdings. History has shown that such taxes often trigger capital flight or relocation of high-net-worth individuals. Europe tried wealth taxes repeatedly and abandoned many of them after discovering they raised less revenue than projected while discouraging investment. Capital moves where it is treated best.

When confidence declines, redistribution becomes politically attractive. But redistribution does not create growth. It reallocates it. The real danger is not the $4.4 trillion number. It is the precedent. Once you redefine wealth as a taxable asset base regardless of liquidity, you fundamentally alter property rights. Markets function on stability and predictability and uncertainty is what drives capital away.

This proposal is unlikely to pass in its current form. Bernie will fossilize before his socialist dreams come true. Yet, ideas that were once considered extreme are now up for mainstream debate. The premise sounds good to voters on paper. Sanders and Khanna are offering “a $3,000 direct payment to every man, woman, and child in a household making $150,000 or less—$12,000 for a family of four. But as those in New York City are learning under Mamdani, tax policies eventually target EVERYONE. Socialistic policies do result in equality—in poverty—as government’s appetite for spending is insatiable.

QUESTION: Do you see any possibility that Iran can win?

Jeb

ANSWER: NO, in the conventional sense. The strategy of Iran is completely different from that of the US. It understands that Trump thinks he will be able to overthrow the regime and this will be short and sweet. They know they cannot win against the United States in that sense. They cannot send balistic missiles to attack NYC or LA. The greatest threat here is that they try to hurt the West by attacking the oil facilities in the Middle East. They know Trump has midterms and scandals to deal with like Epstein. They also know that Americans do not support a prolonged Neocon war. This most likely translates into dragging things out knowing that Trump may have bit off more than he can chew listening to the Neocons.

Iran is not a flat piece of land like Iraq. It is mountainous. They also know that a ground assault will be challenging and perhaps more costly in lives than Iraq. Iran mentality is not the same insofar as victory. It is more about surviving, which to them would be a victory.

Attacking the oil facilities of the other Middle Eastern states will have a great impact on the West than attacking Israel which they also do not expect to defeat. If they can create enough chaos so that ships stay in ports, that also would be a victory to Iran. What you don’t want to see happen is damaging the railway for oil to China. China is the largest oil importer. That would then threaten their national security.

Hosted by Mike Campbell, the 2026 World Outlook Conference will feature a full day of in-person events on March 31, 2026. Martin Armstrong himself will be live on stage that evening. Each session is designed to build on the other, giving attendees both practical tools and a strategic perspective at a critical moment in global markets.

Advanced Trading Training with Erwin Pletsch (8:00 am – 12:00 pm | Westin Bayshore Hotel)

This morning session is built for active investors and traders who want to sharpen execution and timing. Erwin Pletsch will walk through how to interpret reversals, directional changes, volatility spikes, and capital flow shifts using the same cyclical framework that underpins Armstrong’s work. Learn how to identify high-risk turning points, how to recognize false breakouts, and how to manage exposure in vertical markets. This is focused on real-world strategy in an environment where volatility is accelerating, and traditional indicators are failing.

Understanding the Economic Confidence Model with Erwin Pletsch (1:00 pm – 4:00 pm | Westin Bayshore Hotel)

The afternoon session explains the architecture behind the Economic Confidence Model (ECM). Attendees will gain clarity on how the 8.6-year cycle operates, how public and private waves alternate, and how political change and economic instability align with measurable timing arrays. This session connects the dots between war cycles, sovereign debt crises, currency realignments, and civil unrest. It is designed for those who want to understand the “why” behind global shifts and the structural timing that drives them.

An Evening with Martin Armstrong Live (6:30 pm | Simon Fraser University Downtown Campus)

The day concludes with Martin Armstrong in person. This live discussion with Michael Campbell, who many of you will remember from past World Economic Conferences, will address the broader challenges facing the Western world. Explore topics such as the sovereign debt crisis, inflation, geopolitical fragmentation, NATO tensions, capital migration, and the transformation of monetary systems. Armstrong will speak candidly about where we stand in the cycle and what that means as we approach the next major turning points.

Together, these three sessions provide attendees with tactical strategy in the morning, structural economic understanding in the afternoon, and big-picture geopolitical and financial forecasting in the evening.

The 2026 World Outlook Financial Conference will be more than just a conference. It will be a full immersion into the models shaping the global outlook.

Click the button below to learn more about webinars with Erwin Pletsch:

Click on the button below to learn more about the 2026 World Outlook Financial Conference:

PRIVATE BLOG – Does the Computer See a Long-Term Bull Market in Gasoline Prices?

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/

Both Moscow and Beijing immediately condemned the strike on Iran, not in emotional rhetoric, but in the language of sovereignty, international law, and regime change.

Russia did not mince words. Moscow labeled the attack a “pre-planned and unprovoked act of armed aggression” and warned it could plunge the Middle East into a humanitarian and economic catastrophe. Putin described the operation as unprovoked aggression and even a violation of international law. Russia is signaling that regime change operations are viewed as a direct threat to the global balance of power, not just a regional military action.

China’s response was equally sharp. Beijing declared the strike a “grave violation of Iran’s sovereignty and security” and stated it “firmly opposes and strongly condemns” the attack while calling the killing of a sovereign leader “unacceptable.” China understands that if regime change becomes normalized, no major power is insulated from that doctrine.

Even more significant was the joint coordination between China and Russia. Their foreign ministers condemned the operation together, calling it aggression that violates the UN Charter and explicitly rejecting policies aimed at overthrowing sovereign governments. Foreign Minister Lavrov labeled the operation a “deliberate, premeditated, and unprovoked act of armed aggression.” When you see diplomatic alignment before military alignment, it signals a shift in geopolitical blocs rather than an isolated event.

Russia offering to mediate while condemning the attack is strategic. China’s call for a ceasefire and negotiation is strategic. Neither is rushing into direct confrontation because their objective is not immediate war — it is long-term geopolitical repositioning. A prolonged Middle East conflict diverts US military resources and disrupts global energy markets.

What is critical here is that both nations framed the strike in terms of sovereignty and regime change rather than terrorism or religion. That aligns directly with the thesis outlined in my latest report, which argues that the real objective behind such conflicts is regime restructuring rather than religious confrontation. The rhetoric from Moscow and Beijing confirms they are interpreting this through the lens of strategic destabilization, not ideological warfare.

The real danger is not an immediate world war. The greater risk is a prolonged proxy escalation. Russia and China will not directly confront the United States militarily in the Middle East. But both will exploit the instability. This is no longer just a Middle East conflict. It is rapidly evolving into a geopolitical pivot, and the reactions from China and Russia confirm that they are already positioning for a long-term strategic confrontation, not a short-term regional war.

The Western press is desperately trying to frame the Iranian people as either celebrating liberation or rallying behind their government. As always, the truth is far more complex. The Iranian population is deeply divided, and that division is precisely what unfolds when an external military strike hits a nation already suffering from internal political and economic stress.

Reports from inside Iran confirm that reactions are polarized. Some citizens were seen cheering, dancing, and even celebrating quietly after leadership figures were targeted, while others remained in shock and fear amid ongoing bombardments and heavy security presence. The same population that despises the regime is simultaneously terrified of war.

Tehran Right Now pic.twitter.com/POTvU2fWge

— Iran Military Daily (@Iranmilitary24) March 2, 2026

Life inside Tehran has been described as surreal, with residents watching the bombings from rooftops while taking shelter during blasts, illustrating a population balancing moments of relief with deep anxiety. At the same time, panic buying, evacuations, and clogged highways show that fear, not celebration, dominates daily civilian behavior.

The regime’s information control has led to mass confusion. Internet blackouts and communication shutdowns have been used repeatedly to isolate the population, suppress dissent, and prevent organized reactions. The people are unable to easily access information in real time, and the fear of the unknown has led to mass panic. No one wants war. The people have been told that the US is attacking the people of Iran rather than the government.

There are also documented cases of civilians celebrating the strikes and even toppling regime symbols. Yet, simultaneously, pro-government demonstrations and rallies have also been reported, showing that ideological loyalty, nationalism, and fear of foreign intervention still exist. People can hate their government and still reject foreign intervention at the same time. Analysts already note that while some Iranians are cautiously hopeful for change, many fear harsher repression or prolonged instability if the conflict escalates.

The real takeaway is not that the Iranian people are celebrating or mourning in unison. They are fragmented. Some see a potential end to decades of authoritarian rule. Others see the beginning of war, economic collapse, and national destabilization. Most ordinary civilians are not thinking in ideological terms at all. The majority are simply scared and thinking about safety, food, family, and survival.

A divided population under attack does not produce immediate revolution. It produces uncertainty, fear, and a temporary consolidation of internal power structures. And that is exactly the pattern now emerging inside Iran.

Canada’s economy contracting by 0.6% in the fourth quarter should not be dismissed as a minor statistical fluctuation. Statistics Canada confirmed that GDP shrank at an annualized pace of 0.6% in Q4 2025, coming in well below expectations and marking the slowest annual growth since the COVID era, with full-year growth at just 1.7%.

What is particularly telling is not just the contraction itself, but the composition of that decline. Businesses drew down inventories by over C$23 billion instead of producing new goods, while residential investment also fell sharply, including a notable drop in housing and construction activity. Canada has been moving into stall speed for months. Monthly GDP was already flat into the end of the year, with manufacturing weakness and goods-producing sectors dragging on growth, confirming that the slowdown was not sudden but structural.

This fits perfectly with what I have warned about regarding highly leveraged Western economies that depend heavily on housing, commodities, and government spending to sustain growth. When inventory drawdowns replace production, it signals that businesses lack confidence in future demand. They are not expanding. They are liquidating stock to survive uncertain conditions.

Even more concerning is the decline in residential investment. Canada’s economy has been disproportionately tied to real estate and debt expansion for years. Once housing begins to soften, the ripple effect spreads across construction, banking, consumer spending, and provincial revenues. The data already shows spending on homes and condos declining in the same quarter GDP contracted.

The mainstream will attempt to spin this as a temporary inventory adjustment. That is surface-level analysis. Inventory depletion during weak growth phases reflects declining. Companies do not reduce inventories during a boom, rather, they reduce inventories when they fear demand ahead.

What we are witnessing is not a dramatic crash, but a slow erosion of economic momentum. Canada already saw volatility throughout 2025, including prior quarterly contractions and weak manufacturing output, indicating that growth has been unstable and heavily dependent on external trade and government support.