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.

Washington State farmer Joel Gross says government officials turned the regulatory machinery against him after he publicly criticized what he viewed as an unconstitutional assault on his private property. Gross operates nearly 5,000 acres outside Wilson Creek, including about 400 acres of irrigated alfalfa and wheat and another 4,400 acres of rangeland supporting Black Angus cattle. He wanted to build a home on his own property, and instead discovered just how little the concept of private property means once unelected bureaucrats decide they have authority over your land.

Gross wanted to build a 6,000-square-foot home on his own farm, but Washington’s shrub-steppe conservation rules require landowners to offset protected habitat disturbed by construction. Gross says that for every acre affected by his house, driveway, and required solar infrastructure, he may have to permanently preserve at least two additional acres where future development would be restricted. Otherwise, he could be forced to pay mitigation fees. He owns the land, pays taxes on it, yet must sacrifice additional acreage or pay the government for permission to build on his own property.

Gross called the arrangement “extortion,” and his anger is understandable when you look at the economics. AgWeb cites research from the Building Industry Association of Washington estimating that state and local regulations account for approximately $203,976, or 29.5%, of the $690,701 median new-home sales price in the Washington counties it sampled. The comparable nationwide regulatory burden was estimated at 23.8%. Gross says merely obtaining the required habitat inspection from an accredited biologist could cost another $2,000 to $10,000 before construction even begins. Then politicians hold hearings about why nobody can afford housing anymore while their own regulations have added six figures to the cost of putting a roof over someone’s head.

Gross finally did what Americans are supposedly permitted to do under the First Amendment. He complained. On June 25, 2026, he posted his criticism of Washington’s regulations on Facebook under the title “CONFISCATED,” attacking what he viewed as government encroachment on private property. Two days later, Grant County Development Services Director Jim Anderson-Cook responded with a roughly 1,500-word Facebook post disputing Gross’ claims. Anderson-Cook said county employees had received death threats following Gross’ public criticism, while Gross maintains that his complaints were directed primarily toward state-level regulations and he never incited violence.

What happened next is precisely why his allegation deserves scrutiny. Months before the Facebook dispute, county representatives had visited Gross’ property because he wanted to crush rock from his own farm into gravel to maintain his farm roads, cattle pads and erosion controls. Officials had given him the green light in February and indicated that he would not need a commercial mining permit so long as the material remained for on-farm use. Gross says he invested $400,000 in rock-crushing equipment so he could maintain his own property. The gravel was not being hauled off and sold commercially. It remained on his farm.

After Gross publicly attacked the regulations in June, he says the county suddenly treated that same activity as an “industrial surface mine.” That classification could require a conditional-use permit, a Mining Resource Overlay, and review under Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act, potentially creating a multiyear process costing as much as $200,000. Gross contends agricultural grading for his purposes is exempt under Washington law and says no farmer in Grant County history has been required to obtain an industrial mining permit merely to crush rock for use on his own farm.

Agriculture becomes less about producing food and more about satisfying an expanding army of administrators who have never risked their life savings on a crop, worried about rainfall, paid for fertilizer, repaired machinery at midnight, or wondered whether commodity prices will cover the year’s expenses. Regulators are coming after this man for daring to utilize his own land.

Farmers are already being crushed economically. Costs remain elevated, fertilizer has again become a major concern in 2026, financing costs remain painful, equipment has become extraordinarily expensive, and farm debt continues mounting. Farmer’s Keeper survey of 4,000 farmers found 20% were cutting corn acreage as fertilizer prices and supply problems forced them to reconsider planting decisions. The government should be asking how to keep these people producing food rather than inventing another permit, environmental review or mitigation scheme that requires them to hire consultants simply to use their own property.

Private property means absolutely nothing if government can dictate its use without assuming the financial burden of ownership. This has been one of the most destructive changes throughout the West. Politicians discovered they do not always need eminent domain to control land. They can leave your name on the deed while regulating what you may build, where you may build it, how much land must remain untouched, what environmental studies you must purchase and how much you must pay for the privilege of receiving permission. Gross still receives the property-tax bill, naturally, because government never seems confused about who owns the land when the taxes become due.

People vote for legislators, but they do not vote for the thousands of administrators who interpret rules, issue permits, conduct inspections and decide whether ordinary activity falls inside another regulatory classification. Those decisions can destroy a business without a politician ever casting a vote. A bureaucrat does not need to confiscate $200,000 from a farmer if he can create a regulatory process that forces the farmer to spend $200,000 defending the right to continue operating.

Gross declared rural Washingtonians are being “regulated to exhaustion,” and that description extends far beyond Washington. The people producing food are being squeezed by debt, energy, fertilizer, equipment, insurance, environmental mandates, taxes and increasingly complex land-use restrictions while government continues demanding more. Then everyone acts surprised when farms consolidate, small operators disappear and food production becomes concentrated among fewer enormous corporations capable of employing entire departments of attorneys and compliance specialists.

Recent parasitic food pandemonium have led the public to question: where are the smaller farms? How does Taylor Farms have a near monopoly on lettuce? Where is our food grown? Many are not waking up to the fact that agriculture has been regulated into oblivion and smaller operations simply cannot compete.

There is something fundamentally wrong when a farmer must hire experts and potentially spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to convince government that crushing rock from his own property for roads on that same property does not transform him into an industrial mining company. There is something even more disturbing if regulatory treatment changes after that farmer publicly criticizes the people administering those rules. America was built upon private property and the right to challenge government authority. If exercising one right causes bureaucrats to threaten the other, then the problem is much larger than Joel Gross’ farm.

Germany spent decades building one of the most successful industrial economies in the world and then its politicians began dismantling the very foundations that made that possible. Reuters is now reporting that Germany’s trade deficit with China exploded to roughly €55 billion during the first half of 2026, up from €40 billion during the same period last year. German exports to China collapsed by more than 12% to less than €37 billion while imports from China surged 8.9% to €91.8 billion. This is not simply a trade imbalance. Germany is discovering that China increasingly does not need what Germany is selling.

China was Germany’s second-largest export market as recently as 2021 when German companies sold €104 billion worth of goods there. China has now fallen all the way to ninth place among German export destinations, behind economies as small as Austria and Switzerland. Think about that for a moment. German industry spent decades treating China as one of its primary engines of growth, and now Austria is buying more German goods than China.

The politicians will blame Trump, tariffs, China, Putin, COVID, climate change, or whatever excuse happens to be fashionable this week. They will never look in the mirror. Germany voluntarily destroyed its competitive energy structure, abandoned nuclear power, severed itself from cheap Russian energy and embraced an EU regulatory regime that makes producing almost anything more expensive. Meanwhile, China did what any rational industrial nation would do. It invested in manufacturing, infrastructure, technology, energy, supply chains, robotics, batteries, automobiles, and domestic production.

China learned from the West and then began replacing the West. Germany taught China how to manufacture many of the sophisticated products China once imported. German corporations poured capital and technology into China because labor was cheaper and the Chinese market was enormous. Beijing never intended to remain permanently dependent upon European engineering. China used foreign investment to climb the technological ladder and develop its own domestic supply chains. Corinne Abele of Germany Trade & Invest told Reuters that falling German exports reflect China’s increasing focus on domestic value chains. Commerzbank economist Vincent Stamer reached the more important conclusion: China’s declining reliance on Germany demonstrates that it is becoming increasingly independent of Western powers and catching up technologically.

This is precisely what Western politicians refuse to understand about China. They still speak about China as though it were the China of 1995, producing cheap toys, textiles, and plastic junk for Walmart. That China no longer exists and Beijing is determined to force the world to see it as an economic powerhouse. China produces electric vehicles, batteries, solar technology, industrial machinery, electronics, drones, ships, high-speed rail equipment, and increasingly sophisticated technology. Reuters recently described the current export wave as “China Shock 2.0,” with China gaining enormous market share in advanced manufacturing sectors such as EVs, batteries, and solar cells.

Germany is being squeezed from both directions because the entire German economic model was based on globalization remaining frozen in time. Germany imported cheap energy, manufactured high-value industrial products, and exported them to China and the United States. Berlin assumed those arrangements would continue forever.

The automobile industry demonstrates the problem better than anything else. Germany once possessed an almost mythical reputation for automotive engineering. Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche represented German industrial superiority. Then politicians forced the industry toward electric vehicles while China spent years building the battery supply chain, securing critical minerals and developing enormous manufacturing scale. Europe created the demand through regulation while China positioned itself to supply it.

Chinese EV manufacturers are now competing directly with European manufacturers on price, technology, software, batteries and increasingly quality. German manufacturers are consequently being squeezed inside China itself, a market they once expected would provide decades of growth. Reuters notes that the pressure from Chinese competition and American tariffs is already contributing to major job reductions at industrial giants including Volkswagen.

There is another dimension here that the politicians will not discuss. German corporations themselves increasingly manufacture inside China rather than export finished products from Germany. That means even when a German company sells something to a Chinese consumer, the economic benefit does not necessarily flow back through a German factory employing German workers. The multinational corporation may survive while the domestic industrial base contracts.

German companies are producing more inside China itself.

China has also overtaken the United States again as Germany’s largest overall trading partner. Total German-Chinese trade exceeded €128 billion during the first half of 2026, approximately €3 billion more than trade with the United States. Yet the composition of that trade is changing dramatically because Germany is buying far more from China than China is buying from Germany.

Germany is therefore becoming increasingly dependent upon Chinese production at precisely the same time China is becoming less dependent upon German production.

Germany imports the products. China acquires the manufacturing capacity. Germany regulates industry. China expands it. Germany worries about carbon emissions. China worries about market share. Germany’s politicians talk endlessly about strategic autonomy while implementing policies that make their own industries less competitive.

The numbers are now exposing the consequences. Germany’s Federal Statistical Office reported that imports from China were already up 6.2% during the first five months of 2026 to €72.4 billion. China remained Germany’s most important source of imports. Germany’s overall merchandise trade with China had already reached €252.4 billion in 2025, allowing China to reclaim its position as Germany’s largest trading partner.

This is bigger than Germany. Europe is losing its industrial position because Brussels believes prosperity can be legislated into existence. You cannot tax energy, regulate businesses into submission, impose endless environmental mandates, increase labor costs, suffocate entrepreneurs and then demand that European companies compete against China.

Capital does not care about political speeches. It moves to where it is treated best.

China certainly has enormous domestic problems, including its property crisis, weak consumer demand and indebted local governments. This should not be portrayed as China becoming economically invincible. Reuters reported second-quarter growth of only 4.3%, while retail sales actually contracted 0.6% in May before increasing just 1.3% in June. Beijing is responding to domestic weakness partly by pushing manufacturing outward through exports, which only increases the competitive pressure on Europe.

This is why the trade numbers matter. China does not have to possess a perfect economy to displace European manufacturing. It simply has to remain more competitive than Europe.

The relationship between Israel and Britain is deteriorating in a way that would have been almost unthinkable only a few years ago. Benjamin Netanyahu has now taken a direct verbal shot at Britain, referring to it as the “Islamic Republic of Britain” and invoking the joke that Britain could become the first Islamist country with nuclear weapons. This is no longer some disagreement behind closed doors over Gaza. Netanyahu is openly mocking one of Israel’s longstanding Western allies while Britain’s government has moved steadily away from the unconditional support Israel once enjoyed.

Netanyahu made the remarks while discussing how British attitudes toward Israel have changed since the 1967 Six-Day War. After praising Winston Churchill’s grandson for being a “lover of Israel,” Netanyahu said, “Just try to find that kind of attitude in Britain now,” before referring to the country as the “Islamic Republic of Britain.” He then recalled the remark that Britain would become the first Islamist nation to acquire nuclear weapons and connected that directly to Israel’s confrontation with Iran.

This is Netanyahu’s style. Anyone who questions his government’s policies eventually becomes an enemy of Israel. Britain, France, Canada, the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, journalists, humanitarian organizations, and even members of the Israeli opposition have all been attacked when they refuse to fall in line. The distinction between supporting Israel’s existence and supporting Netanyahu personally has been deliberately blurred. Criticize Netanyahu, and suddenly you are accused of abandoning Israel and antisemitism.

London supported Israel after October 7, defended its right to self-defense and maintained a relationship that goes back to the very creation of the modern Israeli state. Britain has also confronted antisemitism domestically, and only last month banned Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a national-security threat. Netanyahu nevertheless appears willing to insult the entire country because its government will no longer provide him with unquestioning political support.

The deterioration has been building for years. Britain suspended some arms export licenses to Israel, halted free-trade negotiations and sanctioned Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich over what the British government described as repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian civilians. London joined Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway in imposing those sanctions. That was an extraordinary development because these were not sanctions against some obscure settler organization. Britain sanctioned sitting ministers of the Israeli government.

Then came the Palestinian question. Britain’s movement toward recognizing a Palestinian state infuriated Netanyahu, who accused the British government of rewarding Hamas. The relationship deteriorated further as criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza grew across Europe. By July, Israeli officials were openly describing relations with the new British government as effectively “frozen.”

This is becoming a serious geopolitical problem for Israel that Netanyahu apparently refuses to acknowledge. Israel cannot indefinitely alienate Europe and assume Washington will compensate for every diplomatic relationship it destroys. Netanyahu has even recently rejected a U.S.-backed Gaza peace proposal, although Gaza has been bombed into oblivion and hardly exists. Israel is increasingly behaving as though its allies require Israel more than Israel requires its allies. That is a dangerous assumption for a nation of roughly 10 million people surrounded by a region of hundreds of millions.

Now is a poor time to abandon European allies. Turkey has become increasingly confrontational toward Israel, and Ankara sees an enormous opportunity emerging from Israel’s deteriorating relations with Europe. Netanyahu may think he is simply insulting Britain, but geopolitics does not operate according to personal grudges. Every ally you drive away creates an opening for somebody else.

Britain certainly has serious problems with uncontrolled migration, social fragmentation, radical Islam and the political establishment’s refusal to confront any of it. But that makes his statement even more reckless because he is exploiting Britain’s domestic divisions to attack its government over foreign policy. That will not strengthen relations between the two countries. It will poison them further.

Israel once enjoyed extraordinary bipartisan support throughout the West. That consensus is breaking apart, particularly among younger generations. Netanyahu appears to respond to this deterioration by attacking anyone who questions him, which merely accelerates the process. You cannot insult entire countries into supporting you.

Netanyahu should be very careful what he wishes for. Britain helped shape the political order from which the modern state of Israel emerged. Today, an Israeli prime minister is publicly ridiculing Britain while relations with Europe continue to deteriorate. The Middle East is realigning rapidly. Israel cannot afford to discover too late that Netanyahu succeeded in winning every argument while losing its allies.

COMMENT: Hello Marty,

I hope you are well. I’ve been thinking of you and hope all is going well on your end.

Peter and I went to visit a customer, Safran, in Sarasota the same week I attended your conference in Tampa. You looked energetic and healthy. It was great to see so many young people engaged and involved. I also saw your posting for the 2026 conference, and I’m really looking forward to it. Possibility for Technical Analysis or Geometry of Time?

…

You should read some of the crazy contracts that we have to agree to, it leans 99% to their favor , really unfortunate. Plus, the big “Primes” in aerospace are asking the Tier 2 suppliers to Tier 3 (Sunset) to push payments out 120 days. I asked them would they like not getting paid for 4 months?

How are you doing? Josephine and Napoleon? I hope we can grab a cup of coffee one day and catch up.

Take care, and I’ll see you in December!

K

REPLY: Josephine and Napoleon are best buds. It was the best thing I did to get my dog a dog. Yes, there is brewing a credit crunch as we move into 2028. A number of our institutional clients are issuing bonds locking in rates. I have suggested that they look to private equity to lock it in rather than bid the market up. With war on the horizon, rates will press higher and that is separate from domestic inflation.

The Tampa Conference was really great to see nearly half the audience was students. Some people are greedy and just seek how much money they can get even if they would not be able to spend it. They leave nothing behind and often when they finally die begrudgingly trying to hold on to that last breath, they have nothing for they cannot take it with them. They are despised and might as well put then in black trash bad and put them out for the next trash collection. They are nothing but solent green to feed the worms. They never had any purpose in life.

No matter what the subject, there are two sides to every coin. Unfortunately within humanity there are the greedy ones who measure life only by how much they can accumulate, even if they’ll never live long enough to spend it. They leave nothing behind. And when death finally comes, they cling to their last breath as if it’s a possession they can hold onto. Yet, they take nothing with them. They’re despised. You might as well toss them in a black trash bag and set them out for collection. They’re nothing but Soylent Green – food for the worms. They never had a purpose in this life and assume if they had more than someone else they were better some how. They never even looked for a purpose in life. They are just consumed with greed and leave nothing behind.

I was raised with the belief that I have a purpose in life, and that it is my duty to discover what that purpose is. We are given only this one journey through life, and with it, the opportunity to acquire knowledge. It then becomes our responsibility to pass that knowledge on to the next generation.

As for the socialists—they are the greedy ones. They invented inheritance taxes because all they see is money. In their view, it was somehow unfair that one parent could pass something on to their children while another could not.

I am undertaking this work in the twilight of my years, not at the start of my career, and not for money. I am fully aware that my work will never reach the mainstream, because those who despise me will do everything in their power to prevent it from gaining traction. That is to be expected—new ideas are rarely appreciated in their own time; they are only embraced after the originator has long since departed.

This conference was always meant to be a passing on of what I have learned. My goals were twofold: first, to show that you can never truly predict where life will take you; and second, to demonstrate that much of what is taught in economics and finance is still rooted in the gold standard era, when currencies were fixed against the dollar. No one ever seriously considered what would happen under a floating exchange rate system—one that was, after all, supposed to be only temporary.

It was Milton Friedman who came to listen to me speak about the FOREX markets and how I was getting called in from country by country all because of a currency crises one way or another. It was Milton who told me what I was doing as a trader was important for this was a whole new field that had to be experienced to understand.

I am trying to have this book to hand out at the December WEC on the Business Cycle and the discovery of the ECM. This is so important because both Marx and Keynes saw recessions or depressions as a FLAW in capitalism so the strived to eliminate the business cycle. Most economists have struggled to try to control it at minimum or devise schemes to eliminate it like “You will Own Nothing and Be Happy.”

This, the Geometry of Time and Modern Analysis for the 21st Century (Technical Analysis) are what I am trying to pass on to the next generation before Scotty beams me up..

I just did the Understanding the World Economy, adding to the previous works: Fiat, Plot to Seize Russia, and Manipulating the World Economy. As I said at the conference, I was a trader, not an academic. All major advancements typically come from the outside looking in. Even the discovery that the computer was forecasting wars was NEVER my intent. Like penicillin, which was discovered by mistake, there are always uninteded consequences. The establishment always rejects it or in my case they call  it “controversial” since they cannot disprove that the business cycles exists or all the forecasts the model has produced.

QUESTION: I spoke with my son-in-law who is into the AI revolution and when he heard I followed you, he said oh, the legend. Not only did he know all about you, but he said you were the classic AI developer and that they thought they could beat Socrates, but he said they cannot get AI to understand the world economy. He explained that your classic AI had rules, and the neutral nets have no rules and they have gone rouge and nobody knows how to reverse this since these neural nets ignore rules. He said people remain in awe of Socrates to this day.

What is you take on this. Are there two divisions in AI?

Victor

ANSWER: Yes. I experimented with the neutral nets and realized they would never be able to be trained to see the world no less trade a market. They could read a Biblical parable but they would not truly comprehend the moral message. They could make a good review, but they then are incapable of apply a lesson from that to a different field. They are not capable of curiosity and will never reach the level of a true sentient lifeform.

I have stated that Socrates in NOT a neutral net. I guess they call what I did as “classic AI” like a vintage car. I coded my experience and how to trade and I explained how the complexity of the entire world economy and how it functions. It is completely a different approach.   The neural nets are great for research, but they cannot discover something entirely new. That is why IBM spent $4 billion on Watson and it failed to discover the cure for cancer. They sold it for scrap.

Andy Burnham has not maintained Keir Starmer’s migrant policy in full. Instead, he has broken with his predecessor by canceling a key Starmer policy and is publicly advocating for a different approach. Burham aims for “fundamental changes” and has focused on tougher border controls while increasing support for genuine asylum seekers. The migrants in the UK receive a specific form of government support for basic living costs:, which amounts to £45 per week per person for food, clothing, and toiletries. This is often loaded onto a special debit card.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham is now considering spreading the migrats all over “all parts of the country need to play their part.” That means he now expects middle-class families to accept large numbers of asylum seekers so the poorest areas are no longer the only ones carrying the load.

This approach obviously does nothing to stop the root of the problem, the sheer number of migrants washing up in boats. It simply advertises better accommodation to the next wave of illegal arrivals.

In essence, Burnham’s plan is about a government-led, large-scale rehousing program using dedicated sites and public management of housing stock, not a request for middle-class families to act as hosts in their own homes.

Andy Burnham named former Defense Secretary John Healey, 66, served as a junior Treasury minister between 2002 and 2007, to be his Chancellor of the Exchequer in a surprise move by the UK’s new prime minister that fueled speculation about a bigger increase in military spending. Healey is a serious Neocon.

While his appointment to the second most important post in government upended expectations in Westminster. Little is known about his position on economic issues, beyond a general assessment that he represents a safe pair of hands and has advocated for more money to fund defense.

Burnham told NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that Healey’s appointment was a “signal of his intent” on defense, according to a readout from his office. Healey told reporters that Burnham’s government “will meet our commitments on defense to our international allies.”

There does not appear to be any shift in policy with regard to geopolitics and pressing war with Russia. Our forecasts for the next two remains remain unchanged and it does not look very good for the UK with Burnham.

QUESTION:  Marty,

I’m seeing online sources-videos, comments and AI say that “Socrates model forecasts a collapse in paper derivative markets, explicitly warning investors that paper spot prices on exchanges will completely disconnect from physical metal reality as physical shortages mount and sovereign debt crises escalate.”

I subscribe to Socrates and watch all your interviews and have never heard you discuss this. Is this accurate?

I’d appreciate if you could set the record straight with a quick reply.
Thank you in advance.

Alex

ANSWER: This AI is becoming a problem where people can make posts mimicking my voice and I have even seen videos while other try to prevent people from reading our site. Some people with self-interests try to make false forecasts that we have NOT made to influence people to buy often in the metals.

There will not be a collapse in derivative markets and this rush to spot metals. There is not enough metal in the world to end currency and only after 2032 are we looking at a redenomination of assets. After the hyperinflation and the fall of the Weimar Republic in Germany, they came out with a new currency in 1925 and it was backed by real estate. This is what I am talking about. Tangible assets from metals, real estate, shares in companies, all make that transition from one currency to the next.

There are people who hate my guts because I have not agreed with them. They have been adamant that derivatives hold gold prices down. They have taken the same position concerning gold leasing, which they also insist suppresses gold. Yet institution require income. Gold produces none so they lease the gold out for income so they can continue to hold it.

I am tired of all the BS with bankers who lose money blaming me that I have too much influence to some goldbugs who say the same thing as if I was eliminate gold would soar. Markets are far bigger than anyone from central banks to an individual.

Everyone acts in their own self interest. Compare gold in USD and Euro. You will see that in Euro, gold made new lows into August. In USD, the los war July intraday and a close it was June. I have been the only international adviser with offices around the world from China to Dubai. Giving advice to buy with no regard for the currency is not being a responsible analyst. This is why Socrates allows you to take any market and replot it in whatever currency you like. Telling an American in July to buy gold for a bounce would lead to a loss for a European.

That forecast is clearly ABSURD and it is not by me nore Socrates. I recommend that you stay with our site to verify any such claim.

We have sold out of this book. We are having another printing ordered and it should be here by September 15th.

I never considered myself an academic economist. I was a trader. That distinction has led me around the world with a front-row seat all because the floating exchange rate was born on August 15th, 1971 and even then it was supposed to be just temporary. Foreign Exchange futures just began trading in 1972. That only emerged when it was becoming obvious that what was intended to be temporary was becoming permanent. Consequently, none of this was ever taugt in school. When the first bank failure took place in 1974, Franklin National Bank, I knew a senior man in the bank and he knew I understood this new thing of floating currencies. This was all before hedging or understanding currency risk. The bank failed on a 10% move of the Italian lira. There were no academics to call in back then. After I looked at the problem, whatever currency crisis developed came down to getting the guy who did the Franklin National Bank one.

This book is about how the world economy really functions. I have been called in from the Middle East even being on the phone in an OPEC meeting to being called by by the central bank of China during the 1997 Asian Currency Crisis. I have attended many board meetings of major multinational corporations and restructured companies to survive the new age of international capital flows.

I have tried my best to relay what I have experienced and learned over more than 50 years. I have witnessed the evolution of the world economy from every side and it has been a fascinating journey. This is a text book on how the world really functions with just over 600 pages fully illustrated in color.

It is also time to abandon domestically confined analysis and theories and understand how the world truly functions, for everything is interconnected.

Understanding the World Economy