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.

QUESTION: You seem to dismiss the various theories that CIA Director Ratcliffe flew to Moscow over Iran or some prisoner exchange claimed by others. You also say the decline in bond yields has nothing to do with inflation. Do you see this as the confrontation between NATO and Russia?

Bret

ANSWER: The long-term bond rate is NOT set by the central bank – that is the free market. This nonsense that the global bond sell-off is fear of inflation and the Fed raising rates is honestly laughable. Rates ALWAYS rise during war. You have to be pretty stupid to buy bonds and expect rates to decline during war. Here is our reconstructed 30-year bond market recreated back to 1792 so you can see the full hostory of the bond market.

There are moments in geopolitics when the messenger is just as important as the message. Sending a secretary of state is diplomacy. Sending an ambassador is routine. But when the President of the United States sends the Director of the CIA directly to Moscow, history tells us that something far more serious may be taking place behind the curtain. That is precisely why the recent trip by CIA Director John Ratcliffe to Moscow deserves attention.

The historical parallel is striking. The last known visit to Moscow by a serving CIA director was William Burns in November 2021, roughly three months before Russia invaded Ukraine. President Biden dispatched Burns because American intelligence had detected Russian preparations for war. Burns later confirmed that Biden sent him to Moscow specifically to lay out what Washington knew about Putin’s plans and to warn of the consequences.

Burns was no ordinary intelligence chief. He had previously served as the American ambassador to Russia, spoke Russian, and understood the Kremlin perhaps better than almost anyone in Washington. Still, his warning failed. Russia came to the rescue of the Russians in the Donbas on February 24, 2022, after the American Neocons had set it in motion.

Yet his warning failed.

What makes this particularly interesting is that CIA Director John Ratcliffe has now traveled to Moscow in August 2026, the first known visit by an American CIA director since Burns made that journey in 2021. That fact alone should cause everyone to pay attention.

In November 2021, Burns was not sent to negotiate a trade agreement. He was not there for some ceremonial diplomatic gathering. Washington had intelligence indicating that Russia was preparing for military action. Burns himself later explained that when he arrived in Moscow, Putin and his senior advisers appeared unmoved by America’s intelligence and warnings. Burns said he left Moscow more troubled than when he arrived.

This is important because intelligence agencies operate very differently from normal diplomatic channels. When governments begin using intelligence chiefs as direct messengers between heads of state, it often means traditional diplomatic channels are either inadequate or the message is too sensitive to entrust to normal diplomacy.

Ratcliffe’s mission immediately evokes the Burns precedent. The Council on Foreign Relations explicitly described Burns’s November 2021 mission as the previous comparable unannounced CIA-director trip to Russia and noted that the memory of that failed warning helps explain the anxiety surrounding Ratcliffe’s journey.

THE REAL DANGER IS ESCALATION

Wars rarely unfold as planned, and they certainly never end as expected. The war in Ukraine has already demonstrated that, as did the war in Iraq, Cheney swore was weeks, not 8 years. What began as a Russia-Ukraine confrontation became a geopolitical struggle involving NATO weapons, sanctions, intelligence, energy infrastructure, frozen Russian assets, drones, and increasingly sophisticated long-range weapons. That creates something politicians chronically underestimate. They listen to the Neocons who assume they always win virtually instantly, like Iran.

War spreads because every action creates a reaction. One side escalates to gain leverage. The other side responds because failing to respond appears weak. Each government then insists that the other side caused the escalation. This is how local wars historically become regional wars.

The concern surrounding Ratcliffe’s 2026 mission is therefore not necessarily that Russia has decided to launch some massive invasion of Europe tomorrow. I believe what prompted the rush to Moscow was the stupidity of Burnham in the UK claiming he would hand over plans to Ukraine to build their own Storm Shadow missiles. That is a serious intervention, and Russia MUST respond or appear weak. Burnham is a complete idiot, no doubt taking direction from the warmongers inside NATO. They could care less if London is nuked. This is all about their lifelong mission to defeat Russia despite the fact that they are no longer Communist.

A president has numerous people capable of delivering a diplomatic message. He can use the secretary of state, national security adviser, ambassador, special envoy, or even communicate directly with the foreign leader. Sending the CIA director carries another totally different implication. It tells the other side that they have intelligence about what they are planning.

Burns later said American intelligence had obtained an unusually clear understanding of Russia’s preparations. Biden therefore sent the CIA director personally to demonstrate that Washington knew what Moscow was doing. This is symbolism that cannot simply be dismissed. Governments understand symbolism. Sending Ratcliffe was symbolic beyond the message.

What I suspect is that Ratcliffe carried identical intelligence in August 2026, but I believe he understood the upcoming Duma elections and knows that the atmosphere is set to turn hardline, thanks to Zelensky deliberately trying to influence the elections to drag in NATO and the USA to fight his war of pure ethnic hatred.

THE QUESTION IS WHAT WASHINGTON KNOWS TODAY

Nobody outside the highest levels of government knows the complete intelligence Ratcliffe carried into Moscow. That is precisely the point. Intelligence missions are designed so that we do not know.

Nonetheless, we can observe the footprints. A CIA director does not routinely travel thousands of miles into the capital of America’s principal nuclear rival during a major European war simply for conversation. Ratcliffe’s journey is the first visit by a serving American intelligence chief since the Ukraine-Russia War began.  That makes the historical comparison with 2021 unavoidable. Anyone claiming that Ratcliffe’s visit proves a larger war is imminent would be speculating beyond the evidence. But ignoring the precedent would be equally foolish.

SEPTEMBER AND THE TURNING POINT

The timing deserves particular attention because geopolitical tensions are already elevated going into the autumn. Our model on NATO turns up September 2^nd, 2026, plus we have the Duma elections.

Markets have a tendency to focus on interest rates, corporate earnings, and government statistics while ignoring geopolitics until suddenly geopolitics overwhelms everything else.

Capital moves first, as our models show, while politicians explain afterward. When geopolitical confidence deteriorates, the critical indicators will not merely be statements from Washington, Moscow, or Brussels. Watch international capital flows, sovereign debt, currencies, gold, energy, and the relative performance of American assets against Europe.

Capital has no political ideology. It simply looks for survival. A war in Europe will send capital fleeing to America. You may even see arbitrage trades buying the USA and shorting the EU.

If international capital begins to perceive Europe as moving toward a broader confrontation with Russia, money will seek safety elsewhere long before governments admit the risk has changed. Right now, capital is contracting back to Russia and China.

The Ratcliffe mission should therefore not be viewed in isolation. This is when Socrates earns its keep. It tracks everything dispassionately without political or geopolitical biases. The critical question is therefore not simply WHY Ratcliffe went to Moscow. It is what American intelligence saw that made the president decide the CIA director should deliver the message personally.

That is the question everyone should be asking as we move beyond September.

PRIVATE BLOG – Ursula’s EU Adopts Hitler’s Nazi Capital Controls

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/

The European Union has finally admitted that it does not control its own payment infrastructure. Visa and Mastercard now process approximately 65% of card payments across the euro area, while 13 of the 20 eurozone countries depend entirely upon international card schemes for in-store transactions. Brussels spent decades allowing two American corporations to become the backbone of European commerce, and now it is using that dependence to frighten the public into accepting a digital euro controlled by the European Central Bank.

EU Economic Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said that Europe’s payment landscape is “highly dominated by non-European providers” and warned that this dependence could prevent the European Union from acting autonomously. He declared that surrendering such technological control to foreign companies poses “real threats to our resilience and economic security.” The concern is valid, but the solution Brussels is offering should alarm every European.

The European Union is presenting the digital euro as a defense against American economic coercion. Officials point out that Visa and Mastercard are American companies subject to American laws, sanctions, and political pressure. If relations between Washington and Brussels deteriorate, European businesses and citizens could theoretically find themselves trapped inside a payment infrastructure controlled from outside Europe.

The European Commission highlighted the case of International Criminal Court judges who faced American sanctions after the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Those sanctions reportedly interfered with their ability to use payment cards even while living in Europe. Brussels looked at that episode and realized that Washington could reach into the daily financial lives of European residents without controlling a single European government.

This is the problem governments created when they transformed payment systems into instruments of foreign policy. Washington has used access to the dollar, SWIFT, correspondent banking, credit cards, and international reserves as weapons against targeted governments and individuals. Europe enthusiastically participated whenever the target was Russia, Iran, or another political opponent. Now European officials are suddenly offended because the same infrastructure could be used against them. Brussels never objected to financial warfare as a principle. It objected only when it discovered that someone else controls the weapon.

The digital euro is being marketed as “strategic autonomy.” The ECB claims it will provide a universally accepted European payment option that works in stores, online, between individuals, and even without an internet connection. The European Council agreed on its negotiating position in December 2025, and the ECB intends to be ready for a potential first issuance during 2029 if the required legislation is adopted in 2026. Pilot testing is expected to begin in 2027.

The politicians insist that the digital euro will merely complement cash rather than replace it. They promise that basic use will be free, merchants will be required to accept it, and consumers will retain the freedom to use other payment methods. They also say that the digital euro will not be programmable money, meaning public authorities supposedly will not be able to dictate where, when, or upon what it can be spent.

The ECB maintains that it would not be able to connect the identity of an individual directly to online digital-euro transactions. Offline payments are being designed to offer greater privacy, with transaction details supposedly known only to the payer and recipient. European officials repeatedly describe these safeguards as proof that fears of surveillance and government control are unfounded.

The issue is not what they promise today. The issue is what the infrastructure will permit tomorrow. Every system of government control begins with assurances that the new power will be narrow, temporary, and protected by law.

The same argument will always be used. First, they will target terrorism, organized crime, sanctions evasion, and tax fraud because few people will publicly defend those activities. The controls will then expand to ordinary financial behavior. Governments will demand more reporting to fight the underground economy, more restrictions to enforce sanctions, and more visibility to collect taxes. During the next banking crisis, they will argue that holding limits or transfer restrictions are necessary to prevent instability.

The ECB will say that offline digital-euro payments offer cash-like privacy, but “cash-like” is not cash. The digital euro will still require an electronic device or card, a wallet, software, funding procedures, and rules governing maximum balances and transactions. The existence of an offline function does not transform a centrally issued electronic liability into a bearer instrument beyond the reach of the system.

Holding limits expose another contradiction. The ECB does not want people moving too much money from commercial banks into digital euros because that could drain bank deposits and destabilize the banking system. Authorities therefore intend to restrict how much digital currency an individual may hold. They are creating what they call digital cash while ensuring that citizens cannot freely hold it like cash.

Replacing Visa and Mastercard with a centralized public system does not eliminate concentrated power. It transfers that power from two American corporations to European political and monetary institutions. Visa cannot impose a negative interest rate upon the euro. Mastercard cannot establish capital controls across the continent. Neither corporation can inflate the currency, rescue insolvent governments, or change the legal definition of money. The ECB and European legislators possess powers far beyond anything available to a card company.

The same governments that froze reserves and expelled opponents from financial systems are asking the people to trust them with digital money. The same central banks buying and repositioning gold are telling citizens that electronic currency is the safe future. Europe is not escaping financial weaponization. It is bringing the weapon home and placing it under Brussels’ control.

Singapore’s economy expanded 5.9% year-over-year during the second quarter of 2026 after growing 6.3% in the first quarter. That brought growth for the first half of the year to 6.1%, an extraordinary performance for an already-developed economy. The government has now raised its full-year growth forecast to between 4.5% and 5.5%, substantially higher than its previous projection of 2% to 4%. This is not India or Vietnam starting from a low economic base. Singapore is already one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

I wrote earlier this year that Singaporeans were feeling their economy grow in real time. The latest numbers continue to confirm what is taking place there. Singapore has become one of the primary beneficiaries of global economic and geopolitical fragmentation because capital does not care about political speeches. It moves where it believes it will be safe, where business can operate, and where there is confidence in the future. Singapore understood this while much of the West decided that successful businesses and wealthy individuals were simply another source of revenue to be taxed.

Manufacturing has been one of the driving forces behind this expansion. Singapore positioned itself directly in the path of the semiconductor and artificial intelligence investment boom while Europe was debating how many regulations it could impose on technology. Electronics, precision engineering, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, financial services, logistics, and information technology have all helped support the expansion. Singapore does not possess vast natural resources. It became wealthy by understanding that human capital, financial stability, infrastructure, and confidence are resources in themselves.

This is also a capital flow story. Singapore has become a magnet for wealth leaving other jurisdictions. More than 2,000 single-family offices are now operating there, compared with only a few hundred several years ago. Chinese wealth seeking diversification, Asian entrepreneurs, multinational corporations, and Western investors looking for stability have increasingly viewed Singapore as a safe place to establish businesses and preserve capital. Money does not need a passport. Politicians can erect barriers, impose taxes, and condemn people for moving their wealth, but capital will always seek the environment where it is treated best.

This is precisely what Western governments fail to understand. Britain believes it can continually increase taxes on capital without consequences. Brussels believes corporations will simply absorb higher energy costs and endless regulation because politicians command them to do so. Canada has attacked investment while expanding government spending and debt. France believes wealthy citizens exist merely to finance government promises. Then politicians express shock when businesses, entrepreneurs, and capital begin looking elsewhere.

Singapore took the opposite approach. It created a financial center where international companies could operate efficiently, built world-class infrastructure, maintained one of the busiest ports on the planet, developed Changi into a major international aviation hub, invested heavily in education and technology, and cultivated an environment where corruption remained comparatively low. None of this happened accidentally.

Geography has certainly helped. Singapore sits directly on one of the most important trade routes in the world. Yet countless countries possess favorable geography and squander it through corruption and political incompetence. Singapore turned its location into an economic weapon. As tensions between China and the United States intensify, multinational companies increasingly need Asian headquarters that can operate between both worlds. Singapore is becoming that neutral ground.

This is why the current transformation of the world economy is so fascinating. India is expanding at 7.8%. Vietnam has been growing above 8%. Mexico is benefiting from nearshoring and its proximity to the United States. Singapore is attracting capital and high-value industries as investors seek stability. These countries are not identical and they are certainly not without problems, but capital is increasingly migrating toward regions that are still building rather than those desperately taxing their populations to maintain systems created generations ago.

Singapore still has serious challenges. Housing is extremely expensive, the cost of living is high, the population is aging, and the economy remains extraordinarily dependent on international trade. A severe collapse in global commerce would certainly affect Singapore. No economy operates independently of the global cycle.

Yet Singapore demonstrates an important principle that governments continually refuse to understand. You do not create prosperity by attacking those who produce it. You create an environment where capital wants to come voluntarily.

The global economy is not simply rising or falling together. We are watching a geographic redistribution of wealth, production, technology, and confidence. India is rising through demographics and industrialization. Vietnam is rising through manufacturing and foreign investment. Mexico is benefiting from the reorganization of North American supply chains. Singapore is rising because global uncertainty itself is pushing capital toward stability. That is why Singaporeans can feel the economy growing in real time.

The Netherlands is moving a substantial portion of its gold reserves out of the United States and Canada and placing it in London. De Nederlandsche Bank will dress this up as an exercise in “tradability,” geographical diversification, and crisis preparedness, but central banks do not quietly rearrange billions of euros in physical gold because everything is stable. This is a geopolitical decision forced by the realization that the international financial system has been weaponized and that access to national reserves can no longer be taken for granted.

NOS reported that approximately 86 tonnes of Dutch gold were relocated between March and August 2026. The Netherlands holds 612.4 tonnes in total, valued at €72.2 billion at the end of 2025. Before this operation, 31.3% was held in New York, 19.7% in Ottawa, 18.1% in London, and 30.8% at the Dutch central bank’s cash center in Zeist. The new distribution places 32.1% in London, 30.8% in the Netherlands, and 18.5% each in New York and Ottawa.

The amount held in New York has therefore been reduced from roughly 192 tonnes to 113 tonnes. London’s share has increased from around 111 tonnes to approximately 197 tonnes. DNB has not reduced the overall gold reserve, but it has deliberately reduced its exposure to North America and made London its largest foreign storage location.

This was not simply a fleet of armored trucks carrying 86 tonnes across the Atlantic. DNB sold nearly 59 tonnes of gold held in New York and purchased an equivalent quantity in London that conforms to modern international trading standards. Another 27 tonnes were physically moved from the United States and Canada to the Netherlands, while an equivalent amount of internationally tradable gold was transferred from Zeist to London. They avoided having to melt and recast older bars, reduced transportation risk, and tested multiple methods for moving gold during a future crisis.

DNB openly stated that this experience could prove useful if gold must be moved again during another crisis and one of the available methods is no longer possible. Central banks do not conduct emergency drills without contemplating the emergency. They are preparing for a world in which a traditional transportation route could suddenly become unavailable.

DNB President Olaf Sleijpen said, “We assume that we will never have to use the gold, but it is nevertheless necessary to strengthen our resilience and preparedness.” The bank also described gold as the “ultimate anchor of trust” capable of covering extreme systemic risks. These are extraordinary admissions from the same class of central bankers who spent decades pretending gold was an outdated relic while they created money without restraint and drove sovereign debt beyond any possibility of repayment.

The official explanation is that gold held at the Bank of England is more immediately tradable because London remains the world’s largest over-the-counter bullion market. Gold stored there meets the international Good Delivery standards needed for rapid settlement, lending, swaps, and outright sale. London’s bullion market processes enormous volumes, and its clearing infrastructure reportedly handles around $160 billion in transactions each day. If DNB needs liquidity during a systemic crisis, London provides the fastest route from physical metal into usable funds.

That explanation is technically valid, but it does not answer why the Dutch suddenly decided that they needed 86 additional tonnes positioned for immediate crisis deployment. The decision is explicitly linked to “increasing geopolitical unrest.”

The West destroyed the neutrality of the reserve system when it froze Russia’s foreign-exchange reserves after the invasion of Ukraine and later developed mechanisms to redirect the earnings from those assets. Whatever one thinks of Russia or the war is irrelevant to the monetary consequences. The United States and Europe demonstrated that foreign reserves held in their jurisdictions are conditional assets. They belong to another nation only for as long as Washington, Brussels, or London recognizes that government and approves of its conduct.

Moving the gold to London does not eliminate geopolitical risk. Britain has already demonstrated that custody does not guarantee access. The Bank of England refused to release Venezuelan gold after the British government ceased recognizing Nicolás Maduro’s authority. Dutch officials may regard Britain as a friend today, but alliances change, governments fall, and foreign policy can reverse overnight. If the purpose is absolute protection against extreme systemic risk, the only unquestionable location is inside the Netherlands.

Nevertheless, the Dutch move exposes the broader trend. Governments are no longer preparing merely for fluctuations in exchange rates or ordinary banking stress. They are preparing for fractured payment networks, sanctions between former partners, capital controls, sovereign defaults, and a breakdown in the political trust supporting the postwar financial order.

Trust is vanishing because governments themselves destroyed it. Once money became a weapon of war, every nation was forced to ask whether its reserves could be used against it. The Dutch have now answered by placing more of their gold where they believe it can be mobilized quickly and, as some put it, held among friends. The troubling part is that nations only begin identifying their true friends when they expect the system to fracture.

QUESTION: Marty, I’ve been reviewing all the reports you’ve distributed at the WECs. I wish Trump had attended—I recall he was in the next room one year. Not only have your war cycles been astonishing, but you also forecast this collapse in confidence in governments that would send long-term rates up. I remember back in 2022, you said 5.5% on the 30-year would be the breakout. I’ve reread your 2022 Liquidity Crisis report. Anyone who dares to question your forecasting is simply a troll for the Neocons.

Will you have any surprises at this year’s WEC? We have so much on the table—war, interest rates, sovereign defaults, stock markets, gold, not to mention the election craziness.

You moved to Florida back in 2016 and said your models were showing a long-term decline for the NY area, even predicting that Wall Street would leave. All of those things sounded nuts back then—and here we are today.

JB

ANSWER: Well, we have everything from Sovereign Debt Crisis that has reached $400 trillion while everyone looks only at the USA at $40 trillion, the real threat of nuclear war, interest rates that the central banks have no control over and the morons who keep talking about inflation that a central bank raising rates will not make oil prices decline in the middle of a Cost-Push-Inflation. I warned that politics would become dramatic and showed the computer warned that the Democratic Party could split. Now even James Carville says it should split.

Besides the 72 Year Revolution Cycle of Russia starting in 1917 that coincided with the ECM 1989.95, and even the real estate crash of 2007 to the day when the floor traders were calling it Armstrong’s Revenge, The computer was correct on the Trump election and forecast the rise in civil unrest from 2020, the commodity boom, the rise in authoritarianism from 2020 into 2032, many overlook the 2011 forecast for the rise in Marxism in the West some call Progressivism.

The evidence strongly indicates that progressivism experienced a significant resurgence in 2011, driven by a wave of grassroots activism in response to economic inequality and conservative policy pushes. This was the prelude to our forecast that the Democratic Party would eventually split. Indeed, several key movements and events took place in 2011.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement was a big one. I remember walking out of the office in Philadelphia back then and the protesters screaming at me calling me a “corporate liberal” where they were just throwing words around that had no meaning.  Beginning in September 2011, this movement brought the national conversation around economic inequality—popularized by the slogan “We are the 99%”—to the forefront of American politics. It energized the progressive left and drew attention from labor unions and even some Democratic lawmakers.

The Wisconsin Capitol Protests also took place in 2011 earlier in the year. That was also massive protests that erupted in Wisconsin against Governor Scott Walker’s bill to curtail collective bargaining rights for public employees. The state, a historical birthplace of the progressive movement, saw tens of thousands of protesters, reinvigorating labor and progressive activism.

By November 2011, progressives celebrated several key electoral wins. Voters in Ohio decisively repealed an anti-union law, and in Mississippi, they rejected a “personhood” amendment that would have severely restricted abortion rights. These were seen as direct rebukes to conservative agendas.

The movements of 2011 received support from established progressive figures and institutions. The Congressional Progressive Caucus voiced solidarity with the Occupy protesters, and labor unions actively partnered with the movement. Publications like The Nation also highlighted the year’s activism as a significant moment for progressivism.

The rise of this progressive movement in 2011 was right on target. I have said many times that the last three wave of a 51.6-year cycle are always the most chaotic. We will have to review where to live for sure. We see the Great Migration in the USA from Blue States that have lost their mind like NYC and the flight to the red states like Tea=xas and Florida.

Texas has built a new stock exchange that is actively competing for business from New York. The Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE), based in Dallas, officially launched full trading on July 31, 2026, and it’s already making moves to challenge the long-standing dominance of the NYSE and Nasdaq. Philadelphia holds the title of the first stock exchange in the United States, with its origins tracing back to 1746 and its formal establishment in 1790. The New York Stock Exchange traces its founding to the Buttonwood Agreement in 1792, with its formal organization as a board occurring in 1817. The new TXSE will eventually dwarf NYC and they inevitably will seek to tax stock transactions etc.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani has actively considered and supported new taxes related to financial transactions. While his focus has been on high-value real estate rather than a general tax on all financial trades, he has supported proposals that function as transaction taxes on luxury property purchases. However, there was imposed during the rise of the progressive era that culminated in the Income Tax in 1913, taxes on financial transactions. New York State Stock Transfer Tax was created in 1905. New York State, in conjunction with New York City, enacted a tax on the transfer of stocks in 1905. This tax was initially a half-penny on stock trades, and it was collected until 1981, when it was eliminated. It has been a subject of ongoing political debate, with recent proposals to reinstate it.

Then there was the Federal Stock Transfer Excise Tax imposed in 1914 to pay for World War I. At the federal level, a stock transfer excise tax (sometimes called a documentary stamp tax) was imposed on the issuance and subsequent transfers of securities. This federal tax was in effect from 1914 to 1966.

We will have a full plate this year between war on 4 fronts, sovereign debts, bond crisis, rising interest rates that are NOT driven by inflation, three political elections, the Everything Bubble, and then political infighting, impeachments, and obstruction of everything.

Also due to popular request, I will include how to do Technical Analysis. I haven’t done that since 2011.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent threatened the entire world in perhaps the most authoritative speech that makes other nations hate Americans for this arrogance.  Scott Bessent thinks he is still with Soros and can now really manipulate the world economy. Those who ask if I have any connection with him the answer is FLAT OUTRIGHT NO WAY!!!!! We are adversaries and he would sooner destroy the USA before ever consulting Socrates. He hates my guts.

The arrogance of the United States is off the charts. Allowing Bessent and the Neocons to use the dollar as a weapon has already divided the world economy. China’s CIPS has been experiencing significant growth. It processed 175 trillion yuan (about $24.47 trillion) in 2024, with plans to expand to support multi-currency settlement. SWIFT is exclusively dollars. CIPS handles approximately 70% of all RMB cross-border payments, and its single-day transaction value has reached new highs, exceeding 1.22 trillion yuan in early 2026. That is 179.9 billion USD daily.

Transforming the US dollar into a weapon is having devastating effects and underminded the FAITH in the US dollar. Obama started this insanity. When Russia came to the aid of Russians in Crimea, he went to SWIFT and insisted that they remove Russia from the system. They said no way. So they replaced the head of SWIFT as a puppet and they started weaponizing the dollar by removing Russia and then had the audacity to threaten China if they aided Russia against Ukraine.

Let’s expose the hypocrisy here. The United States has a well-established history of using military force to protect or rescue its citizens abroad, sometimes escalating to a full-scale invasion. This practice is rooted in the government’s view that it has a legal right—based on national “self-defense“—to protect its citizens wherever they are, and that this right has even been used to justify military intervention in foreign countries. They deny that to Russia.

The principle that the U.S. government can use force to protect its citizens abroad is long-standing. An 1860 U.S. Circuit Court case, Durand v. Hollins, established an important precedent by upholding a naval bombardment of Greytown, Nicaragua, as a reprisal for violence against U.S. nationals. The ruling stated that “the citizen abroad is as much entitled to protection as the citizen at home,” and that a government failing in this duty “is not worth preserving” .

This legal concept supports what has historically been called “gun-boat diplomacy“—the use of military force to protect citizens or their property in other countries . The US will invade and has done so but claim Russia coming to the aid of Russians in the Donbas is illegal?

These people who love power are so stupid that they cannot see that the more people they remove from SWIFT isolates the United States and in the process they are destroying the dollar. The DEDOLLARIZATION has nothing to do with debt, gold, or FIAT. Such arguments only reveal how little they know about how the world economy functions. This is geopolitical and this latest NONSENSE from Bessent will only fulfill our computer forecast that they are destroying the world economy and in the process the dollar as soon as 2030 where we have a Panic Cycle. These idiots are so arrogant and stupid, they cannot see that they are undermining not just the dollar, but the entire world economy. BRICS is a response to American arrogance.

They are guaranteeing that China will supplant the United States as the financial capital of the world for the yuan will become more trustworthy by the mere fact that China would not turn its currency into a weapon when they are benefitting every day the more the USA weaponizes the dollar.

PRIVATE BLOG – Will Trump Nuke Iran?

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/