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.

I have studied such events and revolutions during economic hard times. The violence routinely comes from the LEFT, not the RIGHT, for the simple reason that the LEFT portrays themselves as the victims of the rich and the RIGHT. It does hand-in-hand with that philosophy that they are not to blame, it is always someone with more money that prevents them from rising up the ladder of material wealth.

I have been to Krakow. That main square is beautiful and it is a tourist spot. In Poland, it has just been discovered that the Kraków attacker, Michał Oksiński, was a radical left-wing activist, an antifascist and an anarcho-communist who mocked Christianity. Tusk’s government and the media tried to link him to right-wing groups, but it is now known that this is not the case. Everything could be leaked from Oksinski’s accounts, which have now been deleted. The question is, who deleted the attacker’s two Facebook accounts if his parents and his sister were found dead in their home?

Where does capital go when it leaves one market for another? That question brings people from around the world to the 2026 World Economic Conference. This December 4–6, we invite you to join us from wherever you are to explore how money moves across borders and through market cycles, and to see what Socrates projects next.

The Virtual ticket lets you watch all three days live and includes the presentation slides and video recording. Follow along as the conference unfolds, then return to a chart or replay a discussion you want to study more closely. If a particular WEC special report interests you, you can purchase it at the discounted attendee rate when it is released. Bonus reports are not included in the standard Virtual ticket.

For the full set of digital conference materials, the Virtual Plus ticket includes the livestream, slides, and recording, plus any bonus reports or videos Martin Armstrong makes available for this year’s event. Virtual Plus also opens the networking feature in the WEC Event App and website during the live event, so you can exchange contact information with other attendees. The choice comes down to whether you prefer to select reports individually or have the available materials included and connect with fellow attendees over the weekend.

If your schedule permits, we highly recommend joining us in person. One of the best reasons to attend the WEC is the chance to meet Martin Armstrong and talk with people who follow the same markets from very different parts of the world. The Friday evening cocktail reception gives you time to get to know fellow attendees before the first full day. Over breakfast or lunch, you can pick up a conversation from the day before, compare notes on what you’re seeing in your own country, and build relationships that last beyond the weekend. If a presentation raises a question you’d like Mike and Marty to address, only in-person attendees can submit it for their end-of-day recap. The In-Person ticket includes conference seating, the reception, breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday, presentation slides, the recording, and any additional digital materials made available for the event. We’d love to welcome you into a community that comes together each year for this tradition.

The livestream begins Friday, December 4, from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. EST. Saturday’s session runs from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Sunday’s from 10:00 a.m. to noon, all Eastern Standard Time. Times are subject to change.

We hope to see you there!

View ticket options and register for the 2026 World Economic Conference.

QUESTION: How in  the world did Socrates distinguish that Texas would turn Blue but not Florida? Your computer was the only one to forecast that result.

GK

ANSWER: Look, 99% of the people who put out their forecasts are just an opinion. Far too often they will never forecast something they would never consider. Like CNN, they are claiming this is an extinction level event when Obama lost more seats in the Senate during his midterm election. You cannot forecast when you are biased because y0u want a particular outcome.

Socrates looks at this dispassionately. Nigel Farage came and spoke at our 2019 WEC in Rome and besides calling our WECs the Alternative to DAVOS, Nigel also confirmed that we were the only one to forecast that BREXIT would win.

The computer also forecast that Trump would win in 2016 to the shock of the entire world. Nigel said on stage he got the greatest kick looking at the faces of CNN that election night. Three out of four models projected that Trump would win in 2016.  I asked three girls in their 20s who were working for us who all said they votes against Hillary. I asked why? The response was the same. She wanted to draft women. They called her a “Female Nazi.”

You had the older generation like Madalen Albright saying any woman who didn’t vote for Hillary was a traitor. Policies didn’t matter only gender. When I asked some young people who had voted for Trump before but voted for Democrats om 2026 said they didn’t vote for the policies of Democrats, they voted against the policies of Trump. The computer does NOT show a 2028 victory for the Democrats. Trump will not be on the ticket. Some found his vanity efforts and renaming the Guld of Mexico the Gulf of America and just too far.

Here is a chart we published back then projecting that it would be a 52 years high (51.6 years) for the rise of a third party. These forecasts are NOT my personal opinion. Nobody can make such forecasts and be that consistent. In 1993, I stood up in Tokyo and made a forecast that some in the Japanese government did not like, I said the computer projected that the LDP would lose power, the first time since WWII. Everyone was totally shocked. The LDP’s first major electoral defeat occurred in 1993, and its first loss of government power also happened then. The LDP was created on November 15, 1955, through the merger of two conservative parties. This was the first loss in a 38 year run.

What seems to have drawn a lot of attention is that the computer forecast Texas would return to BLUE but Florida would remain RED. The computer is NOT biased and it has no opinion.

Governors of Texas Since 1900

There is a major difference in the history of Texas vs Florida. The last 5 Florida governors were Republican compared to only 3 in Texas. Until these last three Texas governors, every governor before was Democrat whereas  Florida had two Republican governors in 1967 and 1987 previously

The Number of Slaves Per State 1860

Virginia 490,865
Georgia 462,198
Mississippi 436,631
Alabama 435,080
South Carolina 402,406
Louisiana 331,726
North Carolina 331,059
Tennessee 275,719
Kentucky 225,483
Texas 182,566
Missouri 114,931
Arkansas 111,115
Maryland 87,189
Florida 61,745

Florida was never s major slave state. What few slaves there were, had been confined up north more in the farming area. Hence, Florida was the destination for the rich and famous since the 1920s.  As a kid, I remember my family driving to Miami to visit an uncle and we enjoyed the climate in the winter. My mother wanted to go to Cypress Gardens and it was the days of Ester Williams. This was a different mix from Texas. Keep in mind that the Democrats were the slave owners so they dominated Texas, whereas that was not the case in Florida.

When I say we have the largest database ever assembled, I am not exaggerating. We even have the auction price of slaves from the different markets that is a reflection of labor costs and the rise and fall of employment. You see a sharp peak just before the Sovereign debt crisis of the 1840s when states went belly-up. That was the boom times until the Panic of 1837. Keep in mind that overall, the percentage of the labor force engaged in agriculture in 1860 was approximately 59% nationally and 80%–84% in the South. The South was much more labor intensive.

The first slaves were criminals sentenced in England and shipped to America as indenture servitude. When there term was finished, they did not provide passage back to England. When the American Revolution took place, England merely sent them to Australia. The crime could have been even taking an apple. The Dutch stepped in and provided Africans for slaves under the guise that other blacks sold them as spoils of war. They were not allowed to enslave Indigenous Indians since they were not the spoils of war,

The computer is monitoring everything. I strongly advise that nobody better try to invade the South. We have a milita style army of Red Necks who have been waiting for such a day. They will wipe out any such invasion before the military ever got here and all they are going to find is a bunch of empty shell casings.

Legendary economic forecaster and historian Martin Armstrong returns to The Outer Limits of Inner Truth for a wide ranging conversation on where America and the world are headed. Armstrong argues that neither political party can fix a $40 trillion national debt, and that voters must watch both sides fail before real political change arrives on the road to 2032. He explains why history shows revolutions can succeed with only 15 percent of the population, and why governments ultimately fall when the police and military stop backing them. On the Iran war, Armstrong breaks down how Tehran decentralized its leadership, used waves of cheap drones to exhaust missile defenses, and targeted Gulf state oil revenue to pressure their debt loads, drawing a direct parallel to the 1979 hostage crisis and what he calls reverse regime change.

Turning to Europe, Armstrong warns that Brussels fears the rise of anti EU parties in Germany and France and could escalate geopolitical tensions between January and March, ahead of the April French elections. He explains why the Constitution blocks a Federal Reserve digital currency in the United States, and why bank issued stablecoins backed by government debt mirror the model Abraham Lincoln used to fund the Civil War. For investors, Armstrong forecasts a short term stock market correction followed by a sharp rally driven by global capital fleeing to the United States, rejects the popular crash predictions, and outlines his outlook for gold, energy, diesel, and tangible assets heading into a monetary reset.

LINK: https://www.outerlimitsradio.com/armstrong2032/

The Coming Political War: Polarization, Capital Flight, and the Crisis of Confidence

This is precisely what I have been warning about. Anyone who believes that electing Democrats will somehow resolve America’s mounting economic and political problems is seriously mistaken. Changing the party in power does not eliminate the underlying structural problems. What we may be witnessing is not the beginning of political reconciliation, but the opening stages of an escalating ideological confrontation that threatens to divide the nation even further.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party is increasingly embracing policies that risk PUNISHING SUCCESS AND WEALTH rather than encouraging investment, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Higher taxes, expanded regulation, and aggressive redistribution could undermine the very industries upon which future economic prosperity depends. Artificial intelligence is a particularly important example. At a time when technological innovation is attracting enormous investment capital, policies that discourage private investment could weaken America’s competitive position in the global economy.

The confrontation will also extend into foreign policy, particularly American support for Israel. Growing opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu within the Democratic Party could translate into demands to restrict military assistance and reconsider the longstanding relationship between Washington and Jerusalem. Netanyahu’s political position is becoming increasingly vulnerable as American support shifts from a bipartisan commitment toward another source of domestic political confrontation. So, this polarization is seen also in Israel as well as in the EU and Canada.

Yet the most revealing development may be the divisions emerging within the Democratic Party itself. Before the next Congress has even convened, tensions between moderates and progressives are already evident. The progressive faction will likely demand substantial increases in taxation, wealth redistribution, expanded social programs, and a more interventionist economic agenda. These demands could provoke fierce resistance not only from Republicans but also from Democrats concerned about the economic consequences. The Progressives, like all socialists, cling to their ideas and refuse to look at the track record. They will destroy the economy of the United States as they have done in France and Venezuela.

The coming political struggle may therefore be fought on two fronts: between Republicans and Democrats, and within the Democratic Party itself.

The social controversies surrounding identity politics, government appointments, and competing cultural priorities will undoubtedly attract considerable attention. However, the far greater danger lies in the economic consequences of government policy.

Pension funds, private investment, and capital formation are particularly vulnerable to changes in taxation and regulation. Politicians often assume that wealth represents a fixed pool of resources waiting to be redistributed. They overlook the fact that capital is mobile. Investors can change their behavior, move their assets, reduce investment, or relocate to jurisdictions offering greater economic and political stability.

This is where the analysis of international capital flows becomes essential. Governments cannot simply assume that capital will remain available to finance whatever political promises they make. Capital moves according to CONFIDENCE, opportunity, and perceived risk—not political ideology.

The growing demand for universal healthcare and other expansive social programs raises a fundamental question that governments repeatedly fail to confront:

WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?

France provides a warning about the difficulties of sustaining extensive public commitments while confronting sluggish economic growth, rising debt, and political resistance to fiscal reform. The problem is not simply whether a particular social program is desirable. It is whether the productive economy can generate sufficient revenue to support the government’s promises without undermining investment and economic activity.

There is a fundamental contradiction in attempting to expand government spending indefinitely while simultaneously imposing policies that may discourage the capital formation necessary to finance that spending.

Governments depend upon the private sector for their tax revenues. When taxation and regulation weaken productive activity, the resulting economic slowdown can undermine the very revenue base politicians seek to expand.

This is the paradox of modern fiscal policy: the more aggressively government attempts to extract wealth from the productive economy, the greater the risk that it will weaken the foundation upon which its own financial survival depends. Progressives especially refuse to listen to this. They just want everything to be free, as is the case in France with even a low productivity with a 35 hour work-week and 5 weeks vacation.

As these ideological divisions intensify, the consequences may extend far beyond Washington. Americans could increasingly question whether the federal government represents the interests of the nation as a whole or has become an instrument through which competing political factions attempt to impose their economic and social agendas upon one another.

The danger is that political disagreement gradually evolves into a broader crisis of CONFIDENCE in government itself. Once that c in the government of Rome was incompetent to defend them even against barbarians, they split and took the power themselves. Carausius’ (287-293AD) breakaway of Britain from Rome was in part also driven by not primarily driven by economic motives, intertwined with military and political ambitions. There was the tax burden and trade interests, but also the inflation and debasement of the currency. He even sought to restore the silver coinage.

History demonstrates that when citizens lose CONFIDENCE in central authority, regional loyalties and demands for greater autonomy can become more attractive. The United States is not immune to such pressures. Persistent confrontations between Washington and state governments could encourage renewed debates over federalism, states’ rights, and regional political independence. In Europe, we see Italy insisting a return of their sovereignty.

That warns that national fragmentation eventually becomes inevitable. The growing political polarization, combined with fiscal instability and declining institutional CONFIDENCE, creates conditions in which separatist sentiment historically always gains support.

The fundamental issue is no longer simply whether Democrats or Republicans control Congress. It is whether the political system can confront its structural economic problems without transforming every proposed solution into another ideological battle.

The greatest threat is not the victory of one political party over another. It is the destruction of confidence in the institutions that hold the nation together.

Once that confidence begins to disappear, the consequences extend beyond elections, taxation, and government spending. They reach into investment decisions, capital flows, economic growth, and ultimately the stability of the political system itself. We are already watching capital shifting from government debt to private sector. Be mindful of the debt of the Blue States especially and they celebrate this victory for when a politicians wins, they always assume it is forever.

That is how a political confrontation can evolve into a sovereign debt crisis, a crisis of CONFIDENCE, and eventually a struggle over the future structure of the nation.

This is how political polarization can evolve into a crisis of national unity. The greater the confrontation between federal authority and regional economic and political interests, the more likely we are to see renewed demands for states’ rights, greater regional autonomy, and ultimately the emergence of separatist movements.

The danger is not simply that one political party defeats another. It is that the struggle for political power begins to undermine confidence in the institutions holding the nation together.

That is when political disagreement becomes a crisis of confidence in government itself.

This a social war that reminds me of the Social War during the Roman Republic. The city states of Italy demanded equal right with Rome and the Romans refused. The person most directly associated with proposing Roman citizenship for the Italians and whose death immediately preceded the Social War was Marcus Livius Drusus the Younger, a tribune in 91 BC. The assassin was never identified. The Senate conveniently launched no formal inquiry into his death. He was assassinated for making such a proposal.

Politics has evolved into an outright social war, with ideological divisions increasingly threatening the very foundations of national unity. This may be the beginning of the eventual fragmentation of the United States, as the computer models have been forecasting. Similar pressures are already becoming apparent across the European Union and even in Canada, where regional interests are increasingly coming into conflict with central government authority.

However, the fundamental problem with any scenario involving the breakup of the United States is that today’s political polarization does not follow clearly defined geographical boundaries. Red and blue America are not two separate territories. They are deeply intertwined, often divided not merely by state or county, but by city, suburb, and even neighborhood.

This makes the prospect of national separation far more complicated than many people imagine. Any attempt to divide the country along political lines would produce an extraordinarily complex patchwork of competing jurisdictions, potentially requiring massive population movements to establish coherent territorial boundaries.

That is precisely why a formal breakup remains considerably less likely than a prolonged period of political dysfunction, constitutional confrontation, and growing resistance to federal authority. Then it becomes untenable and violence often surfaces.

The American Civil War of 1861–1865 involved a relatively clear territorial division between the seceding Southern states and the Union, despite significant internal divisions and contested border states. Today’s political landscape is fundamentally different. There is no equivalent geographical boundary separating the competing ideological factions.

The greater danger is therefore not necessarily another conventional civil war, but an escalating internal political conflict in which the nation remains legally united while becoming increasingly ungovernable. There have been people in Florida talking about succeeding after COVID.

History demonstrates that political fragmentation does not always begin with formal secession. It can begin with the gradual collapse of CONFIDENCE in central authority, as regional governments and populations increasingly refuse to accept policies imposed by the political opposition.

Some believe that the United States may remain one nation on paper while becoming increasingly divided in practice. That is one optimistic view, but impractical because the idea of a denial of human rights based entirely on wealth as led to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people for centuries. As I have said, it is even forbidden in the Ten Commandments clearly establishing this is the dark side of humanity that continually surfaces. It is the primary reason why all governments rise and fall. They also say most divorces are also over money.

It is not realistic that there will be a clean brek, because this is so polarized and it is intertwined throughout the nation as a whole.

The US breakup would most likely NOT be just into two. Even Rome had initially split into three because there also it was not an even 50/50 split. Yet the reasons were the same. Discontent with the administration in Rome. I have posed that question to Socrates and this is what it saw.

The Northeast (New England through the Mid-Atlantic), the West Coast (California, Oregon, Washington), plus Illinois, Colorado, New Mexico, and possibly Minnesota—roughly the states that vote reliably Democratic.

An interior/Southern bloc: the South, Plains, Mountain West, and Appalachia—reliably Republican states.

The problem emerges that this leaves swing states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada) as contested, and it splits states like Virginia, Colorado, and Illinois internally. It also cuts the red bloc off from most port access, which would be economically crippling.

Regional blocs of 5–7 nations

1. Northeast (New England + Mid-Atlantic)
2. South (Old Confederacy plus Texas)
3. Midwest (Great Lakes states)
4. West Coast (Pacific states)
5. Mountain West (interior West)

This tracks older regional identities more than the current partisan map, and would likely produce several purple or internally divided nations. Then there is the question nukes. That was a major issue in the breakup of the USSR as well.

Anyway we look at this issue, the split becomes inevitable – it is only a question of WHEN!. The politics is simply becoming hate-speech itself. The Democrats will unleash pay-back and they have demonized Trump like the Neocons demonized Saddam Hussein. This hatred is like we see with Putin, prevents ANY reconciliation. This is all part of the road to 2032. We are simply past the point of no return. If you are surrounded by the opposite party, you may want to realize this is the future and it may be time to move.

Saudi Arabia approached the Houthis to determine what it would take to negotiate an end to the fighting. The answer was $51 billion, supposedly compensation for years of Saudi military operations and the blockade of Yemen. Other figures have reportedly been discussed, but the Houthis are demanding tens of billions of dollars and recognition of their authority over Yemen. This would require Riyadh to abandon the internationally recognized Yemeni government it has supported for more than a decade. The Houthis are effectively demanding that Saudi Arabia pay an enormous sum and accept an Iranian-backed adversary along its southern border.

Saudi Arabia launched its military intervention in Yemen in 2015, believing its superior military capabilities and financial resources would defeat the Houthis. More than eleven years later, the Houthis are demanding payment from the Saudis to stop fighting. They have expanded their territorial control, threatened shipping through the Bab al-Mandab Strait, and demonstrated the ability to attack Saudi oil infrastructure, airports, and pipelines. Riyadh has spent billions purchasing advanced Western weapons, yet relatively inexpensive missiles and drones continue threatening assets worth billions of dollars.

The Houthis have already demonstrated their ability to threaten Saudi Arabia’s energy infrastructure. Attacks earlier this year temporarily disrupted the kingdom’s East-West pipeline, which carries oil from the eastern production regions toward Red Sea export facilities. That pipeline is particularly important because it allows Saudi Arabia to bypass the Strait of Hormuz when Persian Gulf shipping becomes dangerous. With Iran threatening Hormuz and the Houthis operating near Bab al-Mandab, Saudi Arabia faces pressure on both of its major maritime export routes. The kingdom’s geographical position, which once made it an indispensable energy supplier, has become a source of vulnerability.

The United States has also demonstrated the limits of its security guarantees. In September, Mohammed bin Salman reportedly asked President Trump for military assistance against the Houthis. Washington declined to conduct direct strikes on the group’s behalf, although it offered intelligence and targeting support. Saudi Arabia has spent decades maintaining a strategic relationship with the United States based largely upon energy security and military cooperation. Now Riyadh is discovering that an American security partnership does not guarantee American intervention whenever Saudi interests are threatened. Washington is already deeply involved in the conflict with Iran and has little appetite for opening another major military front.

The financial implications extend far beyond the immediate cost of military operations. Mohammed bin Salman has promoted Vision 2030 as a strategy to reduce Saudi Arabia’s dependence upon oil revenues by expanding tourism, entertainment, technology, manufacturing, and international investment. The kingdom has committed enormous sums to these ambitions through its Public Investment Fund. However, economic diversification requires capital, and that capital must ultimately come from somewhere. Oil revenues remain essential to financing government expenditures and the investments intended to create an economy less dependent upon oil.

We are now seeing the consequences of attempting to finance too many ambitious projects simultaneously. The kingdom has already scaled back elements of its NEOM development, the futuristic megaproject originally promoted as a centerpiece of Vision 2030. Rising construction costs, changing priorities, and the enormous financial requirements of the project have forced officials to reconsider its scale and timetable. Saudi Arabia cannot indefinitely finance expensive infrastructure, international investments, military operations, and domestic obligations without confronting the limitations of its available resources.

The collapse of LIV Golf is another example. Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund poured more than $5 billion into the golf league to challenge the established professional golf industry and expand the kingdom’s international sporting influence. The project attracted prominent players with enormous contracts and prize money, but it failed to establish a sustainable financial model. After the Saudi fund withdrew financial support, LIV filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September. A proposed restructuring backed by as much as $300 million from BC Partners has now reportedly collapsed, leaving the league facing liquidation.

There is a difference between possessing valuable oil reserves and having the ability to sell that oil reliably into international markets. Saudi Arabia can hold enormous petroleum resources underground, but those resources cannot finance government expenditures if pipelines are damaged, export terminals are threatened, or shipping routes become inaccessible. The market may respond to supply disruptions by pushing oil prices higher, but higher prices do not automatically compensate a producer that cannot deliver its product. This is why control over transportation routes has become so important in the conflict.

Iran also benefits strategically from the pressure upon Saudi Arabia. The Houthis are aligned with Tehran, although they possess their own political objectives and are not merely an extension of the Iranian government. Their operations complicate Saudi Arabia’s security calculations while forcing Riyadh to divert resources toward protecting its infrastructure. Iran does not need to defeat Saudi Arabia in a conventional military confrontation to impose substantial economic costs. The continuing threat of attacks can discourage investment and undermine confidence in the kingdom’s ability to guarantee the security of its ambitious development projects.

The Houthis are demanding $51 billion because they believe Saudi Arabia has more to lose from continued fighting than they do. Whether Riyadh ultimately pays anything approaching that amount remains uncertain. But the fact that such a demand is being discussed after eleven years of military intervention reveals how dramatically the balance of leverage has shifted. Saudi Arabia may possess the larger economy and military, yet its opponent is threatening the infrastructure upon which that economy depends.

This is the economic reality of modern warfare. A government can spend billions acquiring military superiority and still find itself vulnerable to a far less wealthy adversary capable of disrupting critical infrastructure. The Saudis are discovering that military power, financial reserves, and ambitious investment programs cannot substitute for regional stability. As the war continues, the kingdom will be forced to decide which commitments it can afford to maintain and which ambitions must be sacrificed.

A massive banking crisis is unfolding in Paraguay that should serve as a warning to every nation. Ueno Bank, one of the country’s largest financial institutions, was abruptly shut down by the Central Bank of Paraguay after regulators discovered that its capital had fallen below half the legally required minimum. The bank claims approximately 3 million customers, equivalent to 60% of Paraguay’s adult population, who have now completely lost access to their accounts. Imagine waking up to discover that the institution holding your savings has been closed, your debit card no longer works, and you cannot transfer or withdraw your own money.

The Central Bank of Paraguay voted unanimously on November 2 to place Ueno into resolution, announcing the intervention during the early hours of November 3. Regulators discovered that the bank’s solvency ratio had deteriorated to less than half the required minimum of 12%. In other words, after adjustments to its financial statements, the bank’s qualifying capital was insufficient to support the risks on its balance sheet. Ueno had previously reported a capital ratio of 15.01% in March, comfortably above the legal requirement. Within months, regulators concluded that its true financial position was dramatically weaker. That raises the obvious question of how a bank could appear adequately capitalized and then suddenly be declared insolvent.

Regulators had already raised concerns about excessive lending to companies connected to Ueno’s owners. Depositors place their savings in a financial institution believing that the money will be managed properly, while those controlling the institution may have incentives to direct credit toward businesses in which they have a financial interest. Related-party lending is not automatically illegal, but excessive exposure can create enormous conflicts of interest. When those loans deteriorate, the losses threaten the capital protecting depositors.

Ueno’s rapid expansion made the consequences particularly severe. The bank became a major digital lender, attracting millions of customers through mobile banking and an expanding range of financial services. Around 60% of the population was using Ueno; the scope was massive. Ordinary people suddenly found themselves unable to access their accounts, while businesses lost access to payment services necessary for daily operations.

Once people discover that a major bank has failed, they naturally begin questioning the safety of their deposits elsewhere. Customers rushed to open accounts at competing institutions, placing enormous pressure on digital banking platforms. Authorities reported that millions of account-opening requests were overwhelming parts of the system. A banking panic does not require every institution to be insolvent. It requires depositors to become sufficiently frightened that they demand access to their money simultaneously. Banks operate by transforming deposits into loans and investments. They do not keep every depositor’s balance sitting in cash waiting to be withdrawn.

The banking collapse in Paraguay has now brought down the government itself. President Santiago Peña resigned on November 5 after thousands of citizens took to the streets demanding access to their savings, following the resignation of Central Bank President Carlos Carvallo two days earlier. Peña had previously held an ownership interest in the bank’s parent company, while Carvallo had served as president of Ueno’s predecessor before being appointed to supervise the nation’s banking system. The public began questioning whether the very people responsible for protecting their savings had been protecting politically connected financial interests instead.

Protesters clashed with police, confidence evaporated, and Peña lost the support of his own political party. The lower house voted 78-0 to impeach him even after he announced his resignation. This is precisely how a financial crisis becomes a political crisis. Governments survive economic downturns, but when people discover that their life savings are inaccessible while those responsible for overseeing the system appear entangled with the institutions that failed, confidence in government itself can collapse. Within 48 hours of the bank’s seizure, the central bank governor and the president were both gone. The banking system may eventually recover, but restoring confidence in the institutions that permitted this disaster will be far more difficult.

What makes this crisis even more disturbing is the involvement of public money. Ueno reportedly managed between $800 million and $850 million in government-related funds, including approximately $380 million associated with Paraguay’s Social Security Institute, known as IPS. The institute provides pensions and healthcare services, meaning the consequences extend beyond ordinary bank customers. Approximately $355 million of IPS investments were reportedly held at Ueno, representing around 9% of its investment portfolio. The institute has said that regular pension payments will continue because funds needed for immediate payments are held elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is preparing legal action to recover its investments, while approximately 32,000 pensioners who received payments through Ueno must be moved to another institution.

The authorities are now attempting to reassure depositors through Paraguay’s Deposit Guarantee Fund. Eligible deposits are protected up to approximately 228.3 million guaraníes, equivalent to about $38,000 per depositor per institution. Preliminary estimates suggest this limit could fully cover approximately 97% of Ueno depositors. However, there is an enormous difference between being legally entitled to compensation and having immediate access to the money needed to survive. The central bank initially announced payments of up to 10 million guaraníes, approximately $1,700, while lawmakers moved to accelerate larger payments. Those with deposits exceeding the guaranteed amount face greater uncertainty because their recovery depends upon the value of the bank’s remaining assets and the resolution process.

This is precisely why I have warned about the danger of assuming that money deposited in a bank remains immediately available under every circumstance. A bank deposit is a liability of the institution. The bank owes you that money, but it uses deposits and other funding to support loans and investments. If the institution suffers sufficient losses, regulators can intervene, restrict withdrawals, and attempt to transfer accounts to healthier banks. Deposit insurance may protect eligible balances, but it cannot guarantee uninterrupted access during a crisis. The government can promise repayment while families are left wondering how they will purchase food, pay rent, or meet their immediate obligations.

Public funds and private banking can also become dangerously intertwined. Government institutions are supposed to protect pension contributions and public resources through prudent investment and independent oversight. If political relationships influence where those funds are deposited or invested, the public may ultimately bear the consequences of decisions made by a relatively small group of officials and financial executives. The allegations surrounding Ueno have not all been established, but the bank’s collapse demonstrates why transparency and independent supervision are essential.

The consequences could extend into Paraguay’s broader economy. A sudden interruption to millions of bank accounts can disrupt commerce, delay payments, and undermine confidence among domestic and foreign investors. Paraguay has worked to establish a reputation for relative macroeconomic stability and investment opportunities in agriculture, energy, manufacturing, and regional trade. A major banking scandal threatens that reputation because investors must evaluate not merely interest rates and potential returns, but also the integrity of financial institutions and the reliability of government supervision. Capital is extremely sensitive to uncertainty over the safety of deposits and the rule of law.

Regulators maintain that Ueno’s failure is an isolated case, and the country’s banking association says other institutions remain operational and are absorbing displaced customers. The danger is that public confidence can deteriorate much faster than officials can repair the damage, particularly when the failed institution served such a large proportion of the population.

Paraguay now faces two crises simultaneously. The first is financial, involving the recovery of deposits, protection of pension funds, and restoration of ordinary banking services. The second is political, involving the credibility of regulators, the conduct of bank executives, and the relationships between financial institutions and government officials. Resolving the first without addressing the second will do little to restore long-term confidence.

The lesson is that a banking crisis can develop beneath the surface while the public is repeatedly assured that the financial system is sound. Ueno reported adequate capital earlier this year, yet regulators ultimately discovered a severe shortfall. Millions of customers trusted the institution, and public agencies placed hundreds of millions of dollars under its management. Now the government must determine how much can be recovered and who is responsible for the deterioration.

This is how confidence collapses. It does not begin when every depositor loses money. It begins when people discover that the institution they trusted cannot honor its obligations on demand. Paraguay’s authorities may succeed in protecting the overwhelming majority of depositors through guarantees and transfers, but the damage to public trust has already occurred. When an institution serving approximately 60% of a nation’s adult population fails, the consequences cannot be dismissed as an isolated accounting problem. The entire country is forced to confront the question of whether its financial institutions and political leaders can be trusted with the people’s savings.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has congratulated himself on the Democratic victory in the American midterm elections, declaring, “The process of the US’s collapse has accelerated.” Read those words carefully. He did not say America’s collapse had begun. He said it had ACCELERATED. Iran’s leadership believes the United States was already in decline and that the war in the Middle East has hastened that process. We have been warning about the decline of Western civilization for decades through our Economic Confidence Model. The Iranian regime is now openly celebrating the political and economic divisions that have emerged in Washington, but the question is whether its leaders understand the underlying economic forces or are simply interpreting the election as their own victory.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has represented Tehran in negotiations with Washington, declared, “Conscience or the cost of living, Americans said NO TO WAR, and we endorse this message.” He went further, warning that if Washington ignored the voters to serve foreign interests, Iran’s rejection would come with what he called a “Nightmare.” Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, head of Iran’s judiciary, proclaimed that Trump had been defeated both militarily and politically and promised additional defeats. The regime’s newspapers joined the celebration. Hamshahri declared “Iran’s shadow over US elections,” while Jam-e Jam announced “The twilight of Trumpism.” The Iranian establishment is portraying the November 3 election as proof that the war has inflicted political damage inside the United States.

The United States and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran on February 28, and the conflict has dragged on for more than eight months. Washington has imposed a naval blockade, Iran has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and the consequences have spread throughout the international energy markets. Americans are paying the price through higher fuel costs, transportation expenses, and inflationary pressures. Trump campaigned on ending endless wars, yet his administration became entangled in another Middle Eastern conflict. The Republicans have now lost control of Congress, and even Vice President JD Vance has acknowledged that the war played a central role in the defeat.

What Iran understands is that a military confrontation does not have to end with an invading army capturing Washington to inflict damage upon the United States. The economic consequences can undermine political confidence from within. Iran cannot match the United States militarily in conventional terms, but the Strait of Hormuz gives Tehran leverage over a critical artery of international commerce. When oil supplies are disrupted, the economic consequences spread far beyond the battlefield. Energy costs influence transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, electricity, and ultimately the prices consumers pay. An adversary does not need to destroy America’s military to create domestic political pressure through economic disruption.

Iran’s government has endured severe sanctions, military attacks, and enormous economic pressure, yet they are now pointing to American voters as evidence that Washington cannot sustain its own foreign policy commitments without domestic consequences. This is not proof that Iran has won the war or that the United States is on the verge of collapse. Iran’s economy has suffered enormously, and its own population has paid a terrible price. Nevertheless, the regime recognizes that the American public is increasingly unwilling to finance foreign conflicts while struggling with the cost of living at home.

Khamenei explicitly warned Iranians against believing that Democratic control of Congress would fundamentally change American foreign policy. He said those expecting the United States’ behavior to change through partisan shifts were “seriously mistaken.” That is perhaps the most revealing admission of all. Tehran is celebrating the Democratic victory while simultaneously acknowledging that the American political establishment operates beyond the temporary control of either political party.

Yet Iran’s celebration may also be premature. Trump remains commander-in-chief, and the incoming Democratic Congress does not automatically possess the votes necessary to override a presidential veto. Iranian officials reportedly remain concerned that Trump could respond to his political defeat with renewed military strikes. The Supreme Leader’s rhetoric is therefore serving two purposes. It reassures the Iranian public that their sacrifices have weakened Washington, while attempting to pressure the American administration into accepting Tehran’s terms. That is political warfare, and it should not be confused with an objective assessment of America’s economic condition.

Empires rarely collapse because a single enemy defeats them on the battlefield. They decline as the costs of maintaining their international commitments begin exceeding the economic resources available to support them. Rome experienced this problem as military expenditures expanded while its fiscal system deteriorated. Governments respond by increasing taxation, borrowing, and eventually undermining the confidence of the very population whose productivity sustains the state. Military strength can conceal economic weakness for a considerable period, but it cannot eliminate the underlying problem.

Khamenei’s declaration that America’s collapse has accelerated is propaganda from a hostile government, not an established economic fact. But propaganda works when it exploits real weaknesses. Iran sees the divisions in Washington, the anger over the cost of living, and the political consequences of a war many Americans never wanted. The regime is using those developments to claim that the United States is destroying itself.