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 right now is not just another dispute inside OPEC. This is the beginning of the breakdown of coordinated global energy policy under the pressure of war. The decision by the United Arab Emirates to exit OPEC effective May 1 comes as oil supply is being physically disrupted, not merely negotiated.

Officials in the UAE have tried to frame this as a strategic move, stating they need “greater flexibility to manage production independently” and to expand output capacity without being constrained by quotas. That statement alone reveals the real issue. They have the ability to produce more oil, but OPEC restrictions have prevented them from doing so at a time when global supply is tightening. When a producer is sitting on capacity in the middle of a supply shock, remaining in a cartel becomes a liability rather than an advantage.

The numbers here are critical. OPEC production has already fallen sharply, with estimates showing output around 20.79 million barrels per day in March, while disruptions tied to the Iran conflict are removing as much as 7–10 million barrels per day from global supply flows, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz. That is not a minor disruption. That is a structural shock to the system.

At the same time, oil prices are reacting exactly as expected. Brent crude has surged above 110 dollars per barrel, with U.S. crude crossing 100. Analysts have warned that “there is no clear end in sight to the supply disruption,” which means volatility is not temporary. It becomes embedded in the system.

The UAE has made it clear that it intends to increase production capacity toward 5 million barrels per day by 2027, well above its current quota near 3 million. That gap explains everything. By leaving OPEC, they can monetize that capacity immediately rather than waiting for collective agreements that no longer align with their national interest. Estimates suggest this could translate into tens of billions in additional annual revenue.

I have written many times that OPEC was never a permanent solution to managing energy markets. It was a political construct that worked only when member states had aligned interests and a shared incentive to restrict supply. The moment those interests diverge, the structure begins to fail. OPEC has historically struggled with compliance. Members routinely exceeded quotas when it suited them, particularly during periods of high prices or fiscal stress. That was always the underlying weakness.

What we are seeing now is that weakness being exposed under extreme conditions. War changes everything. When geopolitical survival overrides economic coordination, agreements collapse. OPEC cannot function when members are facing direct threats or when they see an opportunity to maximize revenue independently. This is precisely why these types of organizations tend to break down during periods of rising global tension.

The UAE’s decision signals something much larger about the future of OPEC. If one major producer walks away to pursue independent production, others will begin to reconsider their own participation. The incentive to cooperate declines as the incentive to produce increases. That creates a feedback loop where the cartel loses its ability to enforce discipline.

At the same time, the global energy landscape has already shifted. The United States has emerged as a dominant producer, reducing the relative influence of OPEC compared to previous decades. When OPEC was formed, it had far greater control over global supply. Today, that control is diluted, and fragmentation only accelerates that trend.

Looking forward, OPEC is unlikely to disappear overnight, but its role will change. Instead of acting as a unified force capable of stabilizing markets, it will become a looser alliance with diminishing influence. Pricing power will shift toward individual producers and market forces rather than coordinated quotas. That transition introduces far greater volatility because there is no longer a central mechanism to manage supply in times of crisis.

Geopolitical conflict will increasingly dictate energy flows. When supply routes are threatened and production becomes a strategic asset, countries will prioritize control over cooperation. Energy becomes a tool of leverage rather than a shared economic resource.

The contradiction globally is becoming impossible to ignore. While policymakers in Europe continue to push for eliminating fossil fuels, producers are expanding output and repositioning themselves to control supply. This divergence guarantees instability. There is no substitute capable of replacing this level of energy demand, and the attempt to force that transition is colliding directly with geopolitical reality.

The UAE’s exit is not an isolated event. It is a signal that the system is changing. Energy markets are moving away from coordinated control and toward fragmentation driven by national interest. Once that shift takes hold, it does not reverse easily.

The real takeaway is simple. When supply is disrupted, cooperation breaks down, and producers begin acting independently, the result is sustained volatility. Prices rise, markets become unstable, and geopolitical tension intensifies. This is not a short-term disruption. It is the early stage of a much larger transformation in the global energy order.

There has always been this convenient belief that Big Tech operates independently from government, as if the data you store, search, and upload exists in some neutral corporate space, but that illusion is breaking down rapidly as the lines between Silicon Valley and Washington disappear in real time.

Google has now entered into a classified agreement with the Pentagon allowing its artificial intelligence systems to be used for “any lawful government purpose,” which is a phrase that sounds benign until you understand what it actually means in practice.

This is not a narrow contract tied to a single project. It opens the door for integration into mission planning, intelligence analysis, and even weapons targeting systems operating on classified networks, and once those systems are embedded, the distinction between commercial technology and state infrastructure effectively disappears.

At the same time, Google does not retain control over how that technology is ultimately used, because under the terms being reported, the company has no ability to veto lawful government operations, meaning once access is granted, the downstream application is no longer in their hands.  Please be reminded that Google has been collecting data on everyone and everything for decades: Google Maps, Google Search, Google Photos, Google Drive, Gmail, etc.

This is where the narrative people have been told begins to collapse, because for years the assumption was that your data sat within a corporate ecosystem governed by terms of service and internal policies, yet what is now being constructed is something entirely different, a shared infrastructure where private data, artificial intelligence, and state power intersect.

Even inside Google, there is significant resistance to this shift, with more than 600 employees signing letters to CEO Sundar Pichai warning that these systems could be used for “lethal autonomous weapons and mass surveillance,” and expressing concern that once deployed in classified environments, there is no meaningful oversight or transparency. “We want to see AI benefit humanity; not to see it being used in inhumane or extremely harmful ways. This includes lethal autonomous weapons and mass surveillance but extends beyond,” the letter reads.

This is part of a broader shift in which every major AI company is now aligning with the defense sector, competing for contracts reportedly worth hundreds of millions of dollars, thereby transforming artificial intelligence from a commercial tool into a strategic asset within global power dynamics.

From my perspective, this follows the same pattern we see in every major cycle of power consolidation, where private innovation is gradually absorbed into state control during periods of rising geopolitical tension. Once that process reaches a certain threshold, the distinction between public and private effectively vanishes.

People focus on the wrong question, asking whether Google is “sharing your data” directly with the government, when the real issue is far more structural. Once the same systems that process your emails, photos, searches, and behavior are integrated into government operations, the architecture itself becomes unified, and access becomes a matter of policy, not possibility.

When artificial intelligence becomes the interface between data and decision-making, whoever controls that system controls the interpretation of reality itself, and that is where the real power lies. For the first time in history, we are witnessing the convergence of data, technology, and government authority into a single structure that has already become far too powerful to dismantle.

The latest polling on Keir Starmer is not simply weak, it is a clear rejection. Labour has slid sharply, with support falling toward the high teens in some recent surveys, while his personal approval rating has dropped deep into negative territory, approaching levels that historically signal a government losing control of the narrative. This is not a temporary dip. It reflects a growing disconnect between policy and reality.

What the public is reacting to is not difficult to understand. The UK economy is under pressure from all sides. Borrowing costs have climbed above 5%, households are still dealing with elevated living expenses, and growth remains sluggish. At the same time, policy continues to lean heavily into Net Zero commitments that raise energy costs while offering no reliable alternative capable of sustaining industrial demand. You cannot impose higher input costs on an economy already under stress and expect confidence to improve.

Starmer positioned himself as the steady hand, promising stability after years of political turmoil. Instead, the perception is that nothing fundamental has changed. The same structural problems remain in place, and in some cases, they are being reinforced. Energy policy continues to squeeze industry, regulation remains heavy, and there is no coherent strategy to reverse capital outflows or stimulate productive growth. People are not reacting emotionally. They are reacting to what they are experiencing in their daily lives.

There is also the issue of credibility. Once a government begins to lose public confidence, every decision is questioned. Scandals, internal disputes, and policy reversals all begin to carry more weight because the trust is no longer there. The Mandelson controversy only added to the sense that decisions are being made behind the curtain rather than in the open. That perception accelerates the decline.

What makes this particularly important is that this is not isolated to the UK. Governments across Europe are facing similar backlash because they have followed the same playbook, restricting energy, expanding regulation, and ignoring the economic consequences. The result has been stagnation, rising costs, and a steady erosion of confidence. When people feel their standard of living slipping, they do not care about political messaging. They look for alternatives.

Starmer’s problem is that he represents continuity at a time when the public wants change. You cannot campaign as a reformer and then govern as a caretaker of the same policies that created the problem. The numbers reflect that contradiction. This is not about personality. It is about policy failure becoming visible in real time.

Once sentiment turns this sharply, it rarely stabilizes on its own. It tends to accelerate as opposition grows and internal pressure builds. That is what these polls are signaling. The market may tolerate uncertainty for a time, but the public does not. When confidence breaks, it becomes a political issue first and an economic one shortly after.

PRIVATE BLOG – Stock Market Update – Crash or Boom?

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/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tehran is negotiating with Washington while simultaneously coordinating with Moscow.

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

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) April 27, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Vitamvivere (@Vitamvivere) April 23, 2026

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

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

??? BREAKING —

Ukrainian Civilian Forcibly Drafted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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