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.

If the goal is truly to Make America Healthy Again, then the latest decision from the Environmental Protection Agency raises serious questions. According to the article you sent, the EPA has approved two new fluorinated pesticides, diflufenican and epyrifenacil, for use on some of America’s most important crops, including corn, soybeans, and wheat. Neither chemical has previously been approved for use in American agriculture.

Environmental groups argue these compounds qualify as PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” under internationally recognized scientific definitions because they can persist in the environment and eventually degrade into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), an extremely persistent fluorinated compound found in groundwater around the world. The EPA disputes that characterization, maintaining the products do not meet its regulatory definition of PFAS and that they can be used safely according to their labels.

Diflufenican has already become controversial in Europe. Denmark banned its use in part because of concerns that it contributes to TFA contamination of groundwater, while German monitoring has detected TFA in a large percentage of tested wells. Epyrifenacil has reportedly never received approval for agricultural use within the European Union. Whether those regulatory decisions ultimately prove right or wrong, they demonstrate that this is hardly an uncontested scientific issue. Governments around the world are reaching different conclusions about the same chemicals, yet American consumers are expected to assume there is nothing to debate.

What makes this particularly troubling is the contradiction with the broader Make America Healthy Again movement. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made eliminating artificial food dyes, improving nutrition, investigating chronic disease, reforming food ingredients, and reducing Americans’ exposure to harmful chemicals central themes of his public campaign. Those are worthwhile objectives. Yet cleaning up processed foods while simultaneously allowing the introduction of new fluorinated pesticides that have never before been used on American food crops sends a mixed message. If the objective is to reduce unnecessary chemical exposure wherever possible, then many Americans will reasonably ask why entirely new fluorinated agricultural chemicals are being introduced at the same time. That contradiction is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

The broader issue is one I have discussed for years in my Agricultural Report. Food has become another battlefield. Farmers are buried under climate regulations, fertilizer restrictions, water controls, and endless bureaucratic oversight, while consumers are increasingly separated from understanding how their food is actually produced. Governments continue expanding their influence over agriculture under the banners of safety, climate, or public health. Regardless of political party, that trend never seems to reverse.

Food security has always been national security. Once confidence in the safety of the food supply begins to erode, rebuilding that trust becomes extraordinarily difficult. The debate over diflufenican and epyrifenacil is therefore much larger than two new pesticides. It reflects a growing public concern that regulators continue introducing new chemicals into the food chain while asking citizens to simply trust that everything has been thoroughly evaluated. History has taught us that blind trust in government regulators is rarely rewarded.

Private land may be seized to construct transmission lines required by the rapidly expanding AI data-center industry. If a property owner refuses to sell an easement voluntarily, a utility may resort to eminent domain, provided the project is declared a “public use” and the owner receives what the government calls “just compensation.” Let us call this what it is: legalized theft.

The government does not ask whether the land has been in your family for generations, whether you built your home with your own hands, or whether the money offered would ever replace what is being destroyed. A bureaucrat determines the supposed market value, a judge blesses the taking, and armed government agents will eventually remove you if you continue to resist. They hide behind legal phrases because “confiscation for corporate benefit” would expose the practice for what it has become.

The United States already has more than 3,000 data centers, with another 1,500 under development. These facilities consumed more than 4% of total US electricity in 2024, and demand is rising rapidly as companies construct gigawatt-scale AI campuses. New transmission lines must cross somebody’s property, and when the owner says no, the state may simply decide that no does not matter.

Seventy percent of Americans reportedly oppose having a data center built near their community. These facilities can consume enormous quantities of electricity and water while creating noise, traffic, pollution, and higher infrastructure costs. Health risks are not fully understood although reports of increased cancer risks are prevalent in communities near these facilities. Yet the same governments that claim to represent the public are preparing to override that opposition because the technology companies have more influence than the families whose land stands in their way.

This is already happening. CBS News reported that Georgia Power acquired more than 300 parcels for a transmission project intended largely to serve data centers. The utility said that between 70% and 80% of the new line’s capacity would support data-center demand. Families were informed that if they refused the proposed sale, Georgia Power could pursue condemnation.

Ansley Brown’s family sold the home her grandparents had built after receiving an eminent-domain notice. She called the process “theft,” and she was absolutely correct. Georgia Power would not even identify the data-center companies benefiting from the project, citing customer confidentiality. The landowner must surrender everything, but the corporate beneficiary is permitted to remain hidden. That tells you exactly who the government serves.

The Fifth Amendment states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The government has twisted those words beyond recognition. A transmission line that principally benefits unnamed private technology corporations is now presented as a public necessity merely because the electricity passes through the broader grid. Under that reasoning, nearly any private commercial project can be disguised as public infrastructure.

The Supreme Court opened the floodgates with Kelo v. City of New London in 2005. The Court ruled 5–4 that private property could be taken and transferred to another private party as part of an economic-development plan. The politicians promised jobs, tax revenue, and revitalization. The proposed Pfizer-related development never materialized as promised, and much of the condemned neighborhood remained vacant for years. Families lost their homes so politicians could gamble with property that was never theirs.

I have written about the abuse of eminent domain repeatedly because it destroys the very foundation of a free society. In South Dakota, around 80 farmers faced eminent-domain lawsuits connected to the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline. Surveyors entered private property while the government protected the corporation rather than the owners. The project was sold under the ESG banner, just as these latest confiscations will be sold under the banners of AI, grid reliability, national competitiveness, and technological progress.

In New Jersey, officials moved to seize the Henry family’s profitable 21-acre farm, which had remained in the family since 1850, to satisfy an affordable-housing mandate. The family rejected a multimillion-dollar offer, so Cranbury Township voted to take the land anyway. Four generations of that family were buried in the town, but government officials decided that their housing quota carried more weight than 175 years of ownership.

This abuse crosses party lines. Republicans support eminent domain when they want pipelines, border infrastructure, or corporate development. Democrats support it for affordable housing, environmental schemes, and urban redevelopment. Both sides believe private property remains yours only until the state discovers a politically favored use for it.

Jamie Dimon openly wrote in 2023 that governments, businesses, and nongovernmental organizations might need to invoke eminent domain to accelerate investments in grids, solar facilities, wind projects, and pipelines. That statement exposed the direction of policy. The political and corporate classes view private property as an inconvenience standing between them and whatever agenda they have declared urgent.

Now AI has become the latest excuse. This is not an argument against technological development. Private companies have every right to build data centers, but they should purchase the required land in a voluntary transaction. If an owner refuses to sell, the company should change the route, improve its offer, develop alternative power supplies, or build elsewhere. The word “no” is supposed to mean something in a free market.

There is no genuine property ownership when the government can determine the buyer, the price, and the date you must leave. What Americans possess under this system is conditional occupancy. You pay property taxes forever, comply with thousands of regulations, and may still be expelled when a corporation with political connections wants the land beneath your feet.

The AI companies will keep the profits. The utilities will recover their investments through rates. Politicians will hold ceremonies and boast about jobs and innovation. The displaced landowners will be handed a check calculated by strangers and told that the seizure was performed for the public good.

That is not capitalism. It is corporatism enforced by the state, and eminent domain is the weapon that makes the robbery legal.

QUESTION: Marty, last March you said the dollar would peak against the yuan and then decline into August–September 2026. You also said the computer suggested this move would coincide with rising tensions in the Middle East, specifically involving Iran. Since then, we’ve seen Operation Midnight Hammer on June 22, 2025. In your debt report, you also explained that China has major strategic and economic interests in the region, including its railroad projects with Iran and its broader ties to Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Given those interests, do you see China becoming directly involved in the conflict with Iran, or will it seek to protect its interests through other means?

FJ

ANSWER: Yes, but I do not see China sending troops. Beijing views Iran primarily through the lens of great-power competition. From China’s perspective, a prolonged conflict involving Iran ties down American military, financial, and political resources, leaving the United States less able to focus on what Beijing regards as the primary long-term objective—Taiwan. The drain on military assets has called into question if the US has the missile capacity to even defend Israel while Zelensky is demanding Patriot Missiles.

I have said from the outset that Trump was persuaded by the Neocons, who used Netanyahu to sell the Iran war. Iran has waged its proxy war against Israel for 45 years. Netanyahu has been making essentially the same argument since at least 1996—that Iran is only weeks away from acquiring a nuclear weapon and must be destroyed. Decades later, the narrative remains remarkably unchanged. In my view, this conflict has never been solely about Israel’s security or Iran’s nuclear program. Netanyahu has consistently sought the destruction of the Islamic Republic itself.

Even if Iran had a nuclear weapon they would not use it anymore than Pakistan uses its nukes. Iran sees a nuke as a deterent against Israel which has nukes. But let’s get real. Russia has more nukes than the USA. That does not stop Ukraine even boasting that Moscow will fall. Granted, Iran sees this as taking down Iraq because they did not have nukes. Has Saddam had nukes, the Neocons would not have invaded which was again for Israel.

To understand this conflict objectively, we must first understand its history and we must look at this through each party’s eyes.

Hezbollah officially declared its existence in 1985. What many people overlook is that before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran was the second country in the Middle East to recognize Israel as a sovereign state under the Pahlavi monarchy. That relationship ended with the Revolution. The new Islamic Republic severed diplomatic ties with Israel and adopted a revolutionary anti-imperialist ideology that portrayed Israel as an illegitimate state and a symbol of Western domination. From that point forward, ideology became the principal driver of the conflict.

Iran’s leadership has consistently described Israel as an illegitimate “cancerous tumor” and an American colonial outpost in the Middle East. Support for the Palestinian cause became one of the central pillars of the Islamic Republic’s ideology and a major source of its legitimacy throughout much of the Muslim world.

From Israel’s perspective, however, Iran’s repeated calls for Israel’s destruction and its support for organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas constitute an existential threat. Netanyahu’s campaign to persuade the United States to confront Iran has therefore always extended beyond the issue of nuclear weapons. The broader objective has been the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.

At the same time, we must also understand why Iran refers to the United States as the “Great Satan.” That did not arise in a vacuum.

The 1953 CIA-backed coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and restored the Shah remains the defining event in modern U.S.-Iranian relations. While it is not the only source of hostility, it is the foundational grievance upon which decades of mistrust were built.

From the Iranian perspective, the United States intervened after Mosaddegh nationalized Iran’s oil industry, threatening Western economic interests. Washington and London supported the return of the Shah, who increasingly ruled as an authoritarian monarch. The original conflict in 1953 was fundamentally about control over oil and geopolitical influence.

When the Islamic Revolution erupted in 1979, the memory of that coup became one of the principal justifications for the seizure of the U.S. Embassy and the hostage crisis. The revolutionary leadership also faced significant domestic opposition, much of it secular rather than religious. By portraying the United States as the external enemy, the new regime could brand internal opponents as agents of a foreign power rather than simply political adversaries. History repeatedly shows that governments under pressure often strengthen internal unity by emphasizing an external threat.

The same political tactic appears in many conflicts. Rather than addressing criticism directly, opponents are portrayed as supporting the enemy, allowing governments to shift the debate away from the substance of the criticism itself.

Whether one agrees with Iran’s interpretation or not, understanding the origins of the hostility is essential. The deep antagonism between Washington and Tehran did not begin with the nuclear issue. It is rooted in the events of 1953, reinforced by the 1979 Revolution, and has been sustained by decades of mutual confrontation ever since.

The 1979 revolution set the two nations on a collision course, and the issues over nuclear weapons and proxy warfare have only deepened the divide but are not truly the core issue. This is ultimately a duel to the death. It has been shaping Middle Eastern geopolitics for over 45 years and it appears to be headed into serious confrontation in 2027.

China has been supporting Iran diplomatically and economically, but there is little indication that Beijing intends to become a direct military participant in the conflict. It is important to note that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi traveled to Beijing for high-level discussions during the crisis. The visit underscored the strategic and economic importance that both countries attach to their relationship. Following those meetings, China reaffirmed its support for Iran’s sovereignty while calling for negotiations and de-escalation rather than a further expansion of the war.

I have said before that regime change cannot be achieved simply by bombing a country into submission. In fact, such a strategy often produces the opposite effect. I know Iranians who were strongly opposed to the Islamic Republic, yet the American bombing campaign has caused them to rally behind their country rather than support foreign intervention. The treatment of the Iranian team and its supporters during the World Cup was viewed by many Iranians—including those living in the United States who are otherwise thoroughly Westernized—not merely as criticism of their government, but as an insult to the Iranian people themselves.

That reaction should not surprise anyone. If a foreign power attacked the United States, Republicans and Democrats would almost certainly put aside their political differences and unite in defense of the nation. National identity frequently overrides domestic political divisions when a country comes under external attack.

China has several compelling reasons to maintain close relations with Iran. Energy security is foremost among them. China has long been one of the largest purchasers of Iranian oil, often buying at discounted prices despite Western sanctions. Beyond energy, Iran occupies a strategic position within China’s Belt and Road Initiative, serving as a critical land bridge linking China to Central Asia, the Middle East, and ultimately Europe. Preserving that corridor gives Beijing a strong economic and geopolitical incentive to maintain stable relations with Tehran.

Pelosi Flies to Taiwan

Adding to this, China increasingly views the United States as its principal strategic rival, a perception reinforced by actions it regards as overt attempts at containment. From Beijing’s perspective, policies pursued by successive U.S. administrations, along with highly visible actions such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, signaled growing American support for challenging China’s claims over the island.

In the case of Iran, China sees the relationship as part of a broader effort to balance American influence rather than simply choosing sides in a regional conflict. Beijing has consistently opposed U.S.-led military interventions and the extensive use of economic sanctions, advocating instead for a multipolar international order.

In my view, American foreign policy since the George W. Bush administration has been heavily influenced by the Neoconservative approach, which has favored sanctions as a precursor to military pressure. China has pursued a very different strategy. Rather than relying on sanctions or military intervention, it has steadily expanded its influence through investment, infrastructure, trade, and long-term economic partnerships.

China today has substantial investments not only in Iran, but also in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, and other Gulf states. While the United States has often projected influence through military alliances and sanctions, Beijing has quietly expanded its presence throughout the Middle East through economic integration. That difference in strategy explains why China seeks regional stability: its investments span both sides of the region’s geopolitical divides.

Beijing wants to preserve its strategic relationship with Tehran, but it also wants stable relations with the Arab Gulf states, which collectively are even more important economic partners. If we examine China’s position dispassionately, it is difficult to conclude that Beijing seeks military confrontation. Rather, China’s policy is best described as a balancing act—one that stands in sharp contrast to the more interventionist approach often associated with recent U.S. foreign policy.

That does not mean military cooperation between China and Iran is absent. Reports indicate that Iran is expected to receive Chinese-made portable air-defense systems under a commercial agreement. While Beijing has denied direct government involvement, China is unlikely to remain indifferent if it believes the objective has shifted from containing Iran to destroying the Iranian state. From Beijing’s perspective, Netanyahu’s government is pursuing a policy aimed at the complete elimination of the Islamic Republic, making Israel—not Iran—the principal escalatory actor in the conflict.

China will almost certainly continue providing diplomatic support for Iran in international forums while maintaining its extensive economic and energy relationships with Tehran. At the same time, Beijing has consistently encouraged negotiations and de-escalation because it has every incentive to avoid committing Chinese forces to the conflict. This strategy allows China to protect its interests in Iran and throughout the Gulf while minimizing the risk of a direct military confrontation with the United States.

The unfortunate reality is that victory is defined very differently by each side.

For Iran, victory may simply mean survival. If the government remains in power, Tehran can claim it withstood the combined pressure brought against it by the Great Satan and God has protected them.

For the Neoconservative faction, supported by Netanyahu, victory requires something far more ambitious. But how is that measured? Is reopening the Strait of Hormuz a victory when it was open before the war began? Is it the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, even if they can eventually be rebuilt? Or is the objective regime change?

The problem is that there is no clear or lasting victory available because this conflict is fundamentally ideological rather than merely territorial or military. Attempting to topple the Iranian government also carries the serious risk of drawing both China and Russia more directly into the confrontation.

In my view, this is precisely why the conflict risks becoming another open-ended war with no clearly defined end state. The computer continues to indicate a significant risk of escalation into early 2027. At the same time, President Trump will almost certainly need a tangible outcome that can be presented as a victory. Politically, simply walking away without an identifiable achievement would be extremely difficult. That dynamic alone increases the risk that the conflict will continue rather than conclude quickly.

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, I understand you are deeply involved in analyzing the unfolding debt crisis in Japan, and the mainstream media rarely seems to grasp the situation the way you do. I would greatly appreciate any comments or insights you can share on what is happening here in Japan and where you believe this crisis is headed.

Aikra

REPLY: I hope you are doing well. I apologize I could not handle all the corporate calls from Japan. I will send a quick Institution assessment shortly. The Japanese yen has come down to major long-term technical support challenging the 1987 Crash Levels.

Yes, I think even the Fed does not quite grasp the extent of the real problem. The media is claiming that the Fed is intervening to prevent Japan from selling US bonds. That just shows their ignorance.

The U.S. has recently taken action to support Japan, but the press claims this is out of self-interest rather than pure altruism. In late July 2026, the U.S. Treasury took the rare step of intervening in the currency market to help boost the value of the Japanese yen, marking a significant shift in policy. But WHY?

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s intervention occurred in a very public way. During a live-streamed cabinet meeting, he was photographed holding a note that read, “To do: Buy JPY (yen), 5-10 billion.” Granted, the U.S. Treasury instructed the New York Federal Reserve to sell euros and buy yen, directly participating in the intervention. This was a joint effort with Japanese and South Korean authorities, who were also selling dollars to support their own currencies.

This is where the so-called analysts the press routinely quotes reveal just how little they understand.

They argue that the U.S. intervention was not primarily about helping Japan, but about protecting America’s own financial stability. According to their theory, Washington feared that a collapsing yen would force Japan to liquidate its massive holdings of U.S. Treasury securities to defend its currency.

That narrative falls apart once you understand who actually owns those Treasuries.

Japan is the largest foreign holder of U.S. government debt, with more than $1 trillion in Treasury securities. However, I have repeatedly pointed out that the majority of those holdings are not owned by the Japanese government. They are held by Japanese corporations and private institutions that use U.S. Treasuries as a hedge against the fiscal recklessness of their own government. Yet these analysts ignore that crucial distinction because they approach every event with the same conclusion—they are permanently bearish on the dollar.

Rather than recognizing that Japan is confronting the highest debt-to-GDP ratio of any major economy, they portray every U.S. action as a desperate attempt to prop up the dollar. I stated clearly in the Japanese Institutional Report earlier this year:

“The sovereign debt crisis has begun, and once confidence starts to crack, governments everywhere will discover that there is no such thing as endless borrowing.”

The dollar bears now claim that U.S. intervention is merely a “financial containment” strategy designed to prevent a crisis in Japan from spilling over into the American financial system. Their argument is that if Japan were forced to dump its Treasury holdings to support the yen, U.S. bond prices would collapse, long-term interest rates would surge, and the Federal Reserve would lose control of the market. They weave this into a broader narrative of global war and a looming crisis of confidence in the dollar.

The problem is that this analysis begins with an assumption instead of the facts.

These same commentators have spent decades predicting the imminent collapse of the dollar. When the dollar failed to implode after President Nixon suspended gold convertibility on August 15, 1971, they invented the “petrodollar” theory, claiming the dollar survived only because oil was priced in dollars. Their forecasts have consistently been driven more by ideology than by data.

The wealth of any nation ultimately rests on the productivity of its people. By that measure, the United States remains substantially more productive than Europe. Capital follows opportunity, not political slogans.

Consequently, the dollar bears insist that the United States is supporting Japan only to prevent a Japanese financial crisis from damaging the American economy. In reality, they demonstrate little understanding of how international capital actually moves. If they had access to the Japanese data, they would immediately see that Japanese corporations and private investors—not the government—hold the larger share of U.S. Treasury securities precisely because they seek protection from the fiscal policies of Tokyo.

Our data shows that total Japanese holdings of U.S. Treasuries are approximately $1.14 to $1.24 trillion. Overall foreign ownership of U.S. federal debt is about $9.2 trillion. Of that amount, roughly 58.1% ($5.4 trillion) is held by foreign private investors—including corporations, pension funds, investment funds, and individuals—while only about 41.9% ($3.9 trillion) is held by foreign governments, central banks, and sovereign wealth funds.

Those facts completely undermine the simplistic narrative that Japan’s Treasury holdings are primarily an instrument of government policy. A substantial portion represents private capital seeking safety, and that distinction is fundamental to understanding both Japan’s debt crisis and the global demand for U.S. government securities.

While the Japanese government, primarily through the Bank of Japan, holds a substantial portfolio of U.S. Treasury securities as part of its foreign exchange reserves, the majority of Japan’s roughly $1.2 trillion in Treasury holdings is not owned by the government. Instead, it is held by Japanese banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and other corporate investors.

These private institutions purchase U.S. Treasuries not only because they offer significantly higher yields than Japanese government bonds, but also as a hedge against the fiscal policies of their own government—a strategy that has proven remarkably successful over the years.

What these analysts completely omit in their explanation of why Secretary Bessent would intervene is the longstanding trade dynamic. A sharply weaker yen gives Japan a significant competitive advantage by making its exports cheaper, widening the U.S. trade deficit, and allowing Japanese manufacturers to undercut American producers.

There is nothing new about this issue. I have dealt with more than $3 trillion under advisory contract from Japan over my career, and I have been dealing with the implications of yen-dollar policy and its impact on international trade for decades.

When Rubin, of Goldman Sachs, was Treasury Secretary, then too I would have expected a better understanding of the world economy. He was trying to talk the dollar down once again for trade. I wrote to him in 1997 warning that scenario led to the 1987 Crash thanks to the G5 trying to push the dollar down by 40%. They responded.  The 1997 Asian Currency Crisis which began immediately thereafter in July 1997 a few weeks later.

This is a chart of the capital flows that set off the 1987 Crash. Japan dumped Treasuries and Equities because the fear was the dollar would fall another 40% after the Louver Accord on February 22, 1987. A lower yen will benefit Japanese corporates and Bessent is worried once again about trade.

A number of people have also asked whether I advise Secretary Bessent. The answer is no, nor would there be any point in my attempting to do so.

To my knowledge, Bessent was on the opposite side of the Russian trade during the 1998 crisis, when many market participants blamed me for their losses. I believe there is a longstanding personal grudge stemming from that period, which is why I see no purpose in writing to him.

George Soros’ Quantum Fund reportedly lost approximately $2 billion on its Russian investments. Much of that loss was tied to its investment in the Russian telecommunications company Svyazinvest, which Soros later described as “the worst investment of my professional career.” The fund’s assets reportedly declined from roughly $22 billion in 1998 to about $13 billion in 1999.

After the Financial Times published my forecast in June 1998 warning that Russia was on the verge of collapse, many people associated those losses blamed my analysis. I was later told that some individuals urged the CFTC to shut down my company in retaliation. Whether that effort was directly connected, I cannot independently verify, the CFTC refused to provide any records on me under a FOIA request. But that is what I was told at the time.

This is why some states NEED war for a distraction from the fact that the entire socialistic system is starting to show its cracks. I have warned that Japan could be even the first to decline.

People in the West often assume that wealth is inherited simply by bloodline. That is one of the reasons so many family businesses collapse by the third generation. Japan looked at the problem centuries ago and came up with an entirely different solution. If there was no capable son to inherit the business, they simply adopted one.

The practice is known as mukoyōshi. An adult man marries the founder’s daughter, is legally adopted into the family, takes the family name, and eventually assumes control of the company. To many Westerners this sounds bizarre, yet Japan has quietly used this system for generations to preserve businesses rather than sacrifice them on the altar of family entitlement.

Some of Japan’s largest corporations have relied on this tradition. Suzuki was led for decades by Osamu Suzuki, who was born Osamu Matsuda. After marrying into the founding family, he was adopted, took the Suzuki name, and ultimately transformed a relatively small manufacturer into one of the world’s dominant producers of compact automobiles. Under his leadership, Suzuki expanded across Asia, built a powerful presence in India, and became one of Japan’s great industrial success stories.

Another notable example is Toyota. While not every succession at Toyota has involved adoption, the founding Toyota Group has historically used marriage and adoption within the extended family to preserve continuity across its industrial empire. Rizaburō Toyoda himself was adopted into the Toyoda family through marriage after wedding the founder’s daughter. He took the Toyoda name (company later changed its name to “Toyota”) and became instrumental in expanding the family’s textile machinery business, laying the foundation from which the Toyota industrial group ultimately emerged. The lesson was never about preserving a bloodline. It was about preserving competence. Japanese business families understood that selecting the strongest leader was often more important than selecting the closest relative, a philosophy that helped many of their enterprises survive while countless Western family fortunes disappeared after only a few generations.

The same tradition has appeared repeatedly throughout Japanese commerce. Kikkoman, whose history stretches back centuries, has long relied on family succession through adoption and marriage. Many of Japan’s oldest businesses have survived for hundreds of years because preserving competent leadership mattered more than preserving genetics. While Western corporations often become obsessed with quarterly earnings, the Japanese frequently think in terms of generations.

There is an important lesson here that extends far beyond Japan. A business is not merely an asset to be inherited. It is a living institution that employs thousands of people and represents decades, sometimes centuries, of accumulated knowledge. Handing control to an incompetent heir simply because of bloodline is often the fastest way to destroy what previous generations spent a lifetime building. History is full of family empires that disappeared because succession was based on entitlement rather than ability.

Institutions survive when competence is rewarded. They fail when politics, nepotism, or ideology overrides merit. Japan’s adoption tradition may appear unusual to outsiders, but it reflects a society that historically placed continuity above ego. The founder’s name survives, the company survives, and the employees benefit from stable leadership.

Perhaps the West should spend less time laughing at Japan’s traditions and more time asking why so many of its own family businesses disappear within a generation or two. There are countless billion-dollar companies in America and Europe that will soon face succession battles. Many will discover that creating wealth is far easier than preserving it. The Japanese understood that centuries ago.

There are very few economic statistics that actually matter. Most of what governments publish every month is little more than political theater. They constantly revise GDP, unemployment, inflation, and virtually every other number after the headlines have faded. One measure, however, deserves attention because it tells you whether government is expanding faster than the economy that supports it. That is the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Politicians love to talk about the national debt in dollar terms because the numbers sound dramatic. Trillions upon trillions make for good campaign speeches, but the absolute number means very little by itself. A country with a $40 trillion economy can carry more debt than one with a $2 trillion economy. What matters is whether the economy is growing fast enough to service that debt. Debt-to-GDP attempts to answer that question by comparing what the government owes with the total value of goods and services produced in a year.

The problem begins when government debt consistently grows faster than the productive economy. That is when politicians stop borrowing to finance extraordinary events such as wars or national emergencies and instead begin borrowing simply to pay the bills. Debt ceases to be temporary and becomes permanent. Every budget assumes more borrowing because nobody in government has any intention of paying down the principal. They simply refinance the old debt with new debt and hope the markets continue buying their bonds.

This is why I have repeatedly said the crisis we face is a sovereign debt crisis, not merely a fiscal problem. Governments do not fail because they suddenly run out of money. They fail because they lose confidence. As long as investors believe the government remains creditworthy, the debt can continue expanding. The moment confidence begins to disappear, interest rates rise, refinancing becomes more expensive, deficits explode, and the cycle begins feeding upon itself.

Many economists argue there is no magic debt-to-GDP number where disaster automatically begins. On that point, they are correct. Japan has carried debt exceeding 250% of GDP for years, while other nations have collapsed with ratios well below 100%. Greece entered crisis around 146% of GDP. Argentina has defaulted repeatedly at much lower levels. The difference has never been the number itself. The difference has always been confidence, capital flows, demographics, monetary sovereignty, and whether investors believe the government has both the willingness and the ability to honor its obligations.

This is why comparing one country with another is often meaningless. Japan finances most of its debt domestically and has maintained an enormous pool of domestic savings. Emerging markets often rely heavily on foreign creditors who can leave overnight. The United States enjoys the unique advantage of issuing the world’s primary reserve currency, creating demand for Treasury securities that many other nations could never achieve. That privilege has allowed Washington to borrow on a scale that would have bankrupted almost any other government decades ago.

Yet reserve currency status is not a permanent law of nature. History demonstrates that every monetary system eventually reaches its limits. Rome debased its currency. France repeatedly defaulted before the Revolution. Spain exhausted the wealth of the New World through endless borrowing and military spending. Britain gradually surrendered financial dominance after financing two world wars. Governments always convince themselves that this time is different because they possess some unique advantage. Every empire has believed exactly the same thing.

The debt-to-GDP ratio also reveals another dangerous trend. As government expands, it absorbs a larger share of national resources. Capital that could finance private investment instead finances public consumption. Governments do not create wealth. They redistribute it. When an ever-growing percentage of economic output is devoted to servicing debt and funding government promises, productivity slows, innovation weakens, and long-term growth inevitably declines. Eventually the economy begins working for the government instead of the government working for the economy.

The Keynesian school argues that deficits stimulate growth because government spending increases demand. That theory ignores one critical fact. Borrowed money is not free money. Every dollar the government borrows must ultimately come from the productive sector of the economy, whether through taxation, inflation, or borrowing that competes with private investment. Governments can postpone the reckoning, but they cannot eliminate it. The debt simply becomes someone else’s problem until confidence finally breaks.

People often ask me what debt-to-GDP level is dangerous. That is the wrong question. The danger begins the moment government becomes structurally incapable of balancing its finances during periods of economic expansion. If politicians continue borrowing even while employment is strong, tax revenues are healthy, and the economy is growing, then what happens during the next recession? That is precisely where many Western governments now find themselves. They are running deficits during relatively normal times, leaving themselves with virtually no room to maneuver when the next downturn inevitably arrives.

Throughout history, sovereign debt crises have never been about mathematics alone. They have always been political crises. Governments refuse to cut spending because elections are won by promising benefits, not sacrifices. Every political party campaigns on giving voters something while sending the bill to future generations. Eventually the markets stop believing those promises can be financed. That is when governments resort to higher taxes, financial repression, capital controls, inflation, and every other desperate measure designed to preserve the system.

The debt-to-GDP ratio is therefore not a prediction of imminent collapse. It is a barometer of long-term fiscal health and, more importantly, political discipline. When that ratio continues rising year after year, it tells you that government has become larger than the productive economy can comfortably sustain. History has never been kind to nations that ignore that warning.

Cheese is a staple in most American diets. Milk was coagulated with rennet taken from the stomach lining of an unweaned calf to produce cheese. The calf naturally produces chymosin to digest its mother’s milk, and cheesemakers learned centuries ago how to use that enzyme to separate milk into curds and whey. Then the laboratory entered the barn.

During the 1980s, Pfizer developed a chymosin preparation made through genetic engineering. Scientists took the genetic instructions associated with bovine chymosin and placed them into a microorganism. The altered organism could then be grown in industrial fermentation equipment and made to produce the desired enzyme in enormous quantities.

In 1990, the Food and Drug Administration affirmed Pfizer’s fermentation-derived chymosin preparation from genetically modified E. coli K-12 as generally recognized as safe. The FDA record identifies Pfizer Central Research as the petitioner and amended federal regulations covering animal-derived rennet and fermentation-derived chymosin. This was not some internet rumor. It is written directly into the government’s own regulatory history.

That approval marked a major turning point. One of humanity’s oldest foods could now be produced using an enzyme manufactured by a genetically engineered microorganism rather than obtained from the animal source nature provided.

The product is called fermentation-produced chymosin, or FPC. It performs the same basic task as calf chymosin by cutting a milk protein known as kappa-casein, destabilizing the milk and forming curds. The attraction to the industry was obvious. It offered consistency, scale, predictable strength, fewer supply constraints, and less dependence on slaughtered calves.

This was not introduced because consumers marched through the streets demanding genetically engineered cheese enzymes. It was introduced because industrial production wanted a cheaper and more controllable input.

That is how the modern food supply changes. Nobody holds a national referendum. The corporation submits its data. The regulator gives its approval. Manufacturers adopt the technology. Thirty years later, the consumer discovers that the traditional ingredient quietly disappeared from much of the mass market. Then the public questions why instances of dairy intolerance are on the rise, or why America has become the least healthy nation in the developed world.

Now, 90% or even 95% of American cheese uses genetically engineered rennet. Pfizer’s current production volume is not publicly disclosed, and today’s enzyme market includes other large biotechnology suppliers. Pfizer was an early commercial and regulatory pioneer. It helped establish the technology, but there is no evidence that it currently controls the American cheese supply. That does not make the story less disturbing.

The United States Department of Agriculture also acknowledges exactly what FPC is. USDA organic-review materials state that fermentation-produced chymosin is derived from genetically modified organisms and is not permitted in organic processing. A 2024 USDA document added another extraordinary fact: regulators currently lack the ability to determine the origin of an enzyme sample after it has been produced.

Think about what that means. The government can approve the production process, yet once the enzyme is isolated and purified, the regulator may not be capable of examining a sample and determining whether it came from a genetically altered microorganism. Traceability therefore depends heavily on company records, supply chains, certifications, and paperwork.

Federal law generally requires ingredients to be identified by their common or usual names. Yet food enzymes can also function as processing aids, and American cheese labels frequently use broad declarations such as “enzymes.” That does not tell the buyer whether the coagulant was traditional calf rennet, a fungal or bacterial coagulant, vegetable rennet, or fermentation-produced chymosin manufactured using genetically engineered microorganisms.

You could stand in the dairy aisle and read every package. Unless the manufacturer voluntarily provides greater detail, you may still have no idea which process was used. How can consumers reward traditional cheesemakers when the government permits the essential production method to disappear behind the word “enzymes”? Price, fat, and sodium are visible. Yet the origin of the substance that turned the milk into cheese may remain concealed.

Europe is not entirely free of fermentation-produced chymosin, although there are restrictions. It permits food enzymes made with genetically modified microorganisms after regulatory safety assessments. The European Food Safety Authority has evaluated chymosin produced by genetically modified yeast and fungal strains for use in cheese and fermented dairy products. The difference is that Europe has also preserved legally enforceable production standards for many traditional regional cheeses.

Put it on the label! State “animal rennet” when it comes from an animal. State “microbial coagulant” when it comes from a conventional microorganism. State “fermentation-produced chymosin made using genetically engineered microorganisms” when that is how it was produced. Let the public decide.

The FDA did not require special labeling when it approved Pfizer’s fermentation-produced chymosin in 1990. Even today, supporters point out that roughly 90% of American cheese is made using this process because it is cheaper, more consistent, and less dependent on calf rennet. The issue, however, has never been whether industrial production is more efficient. The real question is why consumers were never given meaningful transparency. If government and industry are so confident there is no practical difference, then simply tell people how their cheese was made and let the market decide. A free market depends on informed consumers, not information filtered through regulators and multinational corporations.

QUESTION #1: Why are you always against sanctions on Russia or Iran?

WH

QUESTION #2: Marty; you said the American people are more often than not anti-war. Was that limited to Vietnam?

Paul

ANSWER #1: Look, historically sanctions ALWAYS lead to war. Joe Biden imposed sanctions on Russia 10 months BEFORE the Ukraine-Russia War began. His administration was in the hands of the Neocons. FDR imposed sanctions on Japan BEFORE Pearl Harbor. There is no instance where sanctions were imposed that did not lead to military action.

The United States imposed sanctions on Cuba BEFORE the 1962 missile crisis. The sanctions began in 1960 under President Eisenhower, and the comprehensive embargo was enacted in February 1962, months before the crisis in October.

The U.S. established a partial trade embargo on Cuba in October 1960, which notably excluded food and medicine. Then in January 1961, the U.S. broke diplomatic relations with Cuba. This was followed by February 1962 when President John F. Kennedy ordered a complete commercial, economic, and financial embargo on Cuba. This embargo went into full effect on February 7, 1962. The comprehensive embargo in February 1962 was a significant escalation of existing measures. The missile crisis, which began in October when the U.S. discovered Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, occurred later in the year.

Look, I must deal with facts, not politics. The historical record shows that U.S. sanctions have NEVER achieved clear behavioral changes. Just look at the Cold War. Sanctions have typically failed to meet their primary political objectives in high-profile, long-standing disputes.

I cannot imagine that the Neocons who push for sanctions all the time, are that stupid to actually expect this will cause some mythical political objective. They have to understand that they always begin military objectives with economic war actions.

ANSWER #2: The Korean War is most likely beyond all of our memories. The 1952 U.S. presidential election was significantly about ending the Korean War as was Nixon’s victory about ending Vietnam. The Korean conflict was a central and decisive issue that Dwight D. Eisenhower leveraged to win the presidency. For you see, the public’s frustration with what was a Neocon endless war was real before Vietnam. By 1952, the Korean War had become a bloody, costly stalemate, deeply unpopular with the American public as we are seeing now with Ira. The war had turned into what some called the “detestable Korean War” consuming the blood and lives of so many American youths. President Truman’s approval ratings plummeted, dropping as low as 23%, largely due to his perceived inability to resolve the conflict. Trump needs to look at history here.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican candidate, recognized the public’s discontent for this war and made ending the war a cornerstone of his campaign. He anchored his campaign on a pledge to quickly end the war if elected. This message was encapsulated in a powerful promise that resonated with voters.

Eisenhower won the election in a landslide, and the Korean issue was a primary driver of his victory. Following his election, he followed through on his commitment. Upon taking office, Eisenhower used a mix of threats, including hinting at the use of nuclear weapons, to pressure China into agreeing to a cease-fire. The armistice talks, which had stalled, eventually made progress and led to the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement in July 1953.

All I can say is that EVERY war that has NOT actually threatened the United States has been UNPOPULAR. The Neocons have their agenda. They infiltrate every administration seeking to usurp American foreign policy. This is a policy coup that unfolds every time.

Israel’s influence in the United States is in crash mode all because Netanyahu has abused the relationship for his personal hatred of Iran. He has manage to sucker-in Trump, and now he is trapped in an unpopular war he cannot control Netanyahu.

PRIVATE BLOG – The Panic Cycle of 2027 in Russia

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/