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.

PRIVATE BLOG – Gold the Crash into ’27?

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/

PRIVATE BLOG – The Share Market Outlook

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 computer is warning of chaos ahead. If there is ever an election to be challenged, this is it. Under House rules, a Member-elect can challenge another Member-elect’s right to be sworn in. If a challenge is made, the challenged member steps aside while the rest of the House is sworn in. The seated majority then votes on how to handle the challenge, which could include referring it to committee, effectively delaying seating.

Some conservative lawmakers, like Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas), have floated using this maneuver to block Democratic Socialists from being seated, arguing their platform is incompatible with the oath to uphold the Constitution.

In response, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is circulating a pledge to oppose any attempt to delay or deny seating of a state-certified election winner, aiming to head off this scenario

Speaker Mike Johnson has publicly rejected the idea that Republicans would refuse to seat Democratic winners, calling it a “nonsense narrative” and “absurd.”

I am surpised that nobody has proposed that the progressives violate the freedom of religion by coveting the wealth of a selected class.The Supreme Court upheld the income tax with the 16th Amendment that was passed during the Progressive Era. Even Teddy Roosevelt was the candidate of the Progressive Party in 1912. The Constitution prohibited Direct Taxation. Taxes were to be only INDIRECT such as a sales tax or import taxes. They did not require the surrender of privacy.

The 16th Amendment has never been challenged as a violation of the Freedom of Religion violating the Tenth Commandment and the entire equality doctrine of the founding of the nation. Democrats suddenly can hate people who have more than they do and the claim in their oen self-interest that wealth is not deserving of rights as religion of race.

This is a serious election. This is a confrontation that will destroy the United States all because of this class warfare that throughout history ALWAYS without exception has led to the collapse of the political state that has adopted such a policy.

The policies of the Progressive are right out of Marx’s Communist Manifesto. They do not believe in God. Marx called religion is the opium of the people.  For thousands of years this idea of robbing people because they have more than you has resulted in hundreds of deaths from civil wars. The progressive are getting the upper hand in the Democratic camp. Even James Carville is concerned. They will not merely destroy the Democratic Party, they will so polarize the country and we will see a rise in separatist movements while others will simply leave. We have already witnessed the great migrations since COVID from Blue states to the Red. This time, they may cause the great migration from North America to the South.

The Supreme Court upheld the progressive tax code primarily because the 16th Amendment (1913) explicitly granted Congress the power to tax incomes without apportionment among the states, and subsequent rulings established that wealth is NOT a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause, meaning tax laws only need a rational basis to be constitutional. The Supreme Court was a Progressive Marxist view at the time so since the states have an incentive in this as well, there is no democratic way to repair this damage.

President Grover Gleveland understood the damage of taxation. This was when the Founding Fathers prohibited disproportionate taxation that the Progressives overrule with the 16th Amendment. Politicians will NEVER admit this fundamental mistake that undermines LIBERTY al together.

The definition of who is this hated class of the rich changes with time. If you gave your child stock and they earned $100,000 in dividends and interest, they are taxed at you tax rate because they assume you are just trying to lower your tax rate for we are all just tax cheats in their eyes.

While the Supreme Court held that you can be discriminated against because you have something the Progressive want, they can change the definition of who they consider to be rich at any moment To get an idea of what these progressive view, look at the Former Prime Minister of the UK Stammer and how he responded to this question.

Starmer was asked whether someone who gets additional income from assets (like shares or property) would still count as a “working person.” He replied that they

“wouldn’t come within my definition”. He defined a working person as someone who “goes out and earns their living, usually paid in a sort of monthly cheque.”

I forget the politicians name, but in British Columbia, I was shocked when she actually said that EVERYTHING you earn BELONGS to the state, and they DECIDE what you are allowed to keep.

This is the direction of the United States. It will cause separatist movements and we will see that they will destroy the foundation of LIBERTY all for their greed and coveting everybody’s wealth and their definition of what is wealth is anything beyond a pay check. This is why the Tenth Commandment exists. This is the dark side of humanity that historically has destroyed every government as we saw with Russia and China.

Welcome to the road to 2032 where we finally get to redesign our future.

PRIVATE BLOG – White House Trying to Talk the World Out of WWIII

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/

QUESTION: Marty, Socrates has again targeted our political change here in Poland. Your ECM turn was to the day when President Duda called for a new Polish parliament to convene after the October 15th elections. That was led by former (unelected) EU President Donald Tusk.  I think you warned it would be a move toward the left and it would signal confrontation with Russia. Today, Tusk stages a coup against the judiciary to prevent them from ruling against him. Socrates had a Double Directional Change today. How does our country look from here?

Anon

REPLY: Yes the ECM turn was precisely on track in Poland. The Tusk government has been engaged in a sustained effort to neutralize the influence of the current Constitutional Tribunal, which it regards as illegitimate due to judges appointed under the previous Law and Justice (PiS) government. The judiciary is calling it as coup d’état. This is all about keeping geopolitical objectives of war with Russia. I will deal with the fate of Poland on the Private Blog.

The ongoing dispute in Poland involves a power struggle between Prime Minister Donald Tusk and President Karol Nawrocki, primarily centered around the control of the Constitutional Tribunal. This conflict has escalated into a significant constitutional crisis. But what the press stays away from is that this is about World War III to save the EU. Karol Nawrocki has publicly opposed Ukraine’s accession to NATO. He believes that Ukraine should not join until certain historical grievances, particularly related to the Volhynia massacres, are addressed. This stance has led some to interpret his position as anti-Ukrainian.

Donald Tusk has consistently advocated for strong support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. He emphasizes that aiding Ukraine is crucial for the security of Europe. Tusk has stated that anyone seeking to weaken Ukraine is acting against their own nation’s interests. He has called for increased military assistance to Ukraine and tougher sanctions against Russia. He insists that it is necessary to deter Russian aggression with force, which he views as a threat not only to Ukraine but to European security as a whole, which is the unity BS put out by the EU to distract everyone from the rising separatist movements because of the EU migrant policy to increase the people who will vote for the EU and the LEFT..

Tusk has warned that Russia’s ambitions extend beyond Ukraine, suggesting that if unchecked, Russia could threaten other European nations. He has described the current situation as a “pre-war era,” indicating the seriousness of the threat he claims is posed by Russia, when in fact this is all about keeping the EU.

To make this absolutely clear, Donald Tusk has NEVER been directly elected by the Polish people as president; he has been elected as Prime Minister by the Polish parliament only. The people have no right to actually elect the head of state so he becomes a defacto dictator elected only by bureaucrats, not the people. He previously served as Prime Minister from 2007 to 2014 and was re-elected by parliament in 2011.

COMMENT:  Hello Martin,

Reuters reports (link) – “ Pentagon officials have in recent weeks asked several NATO countries to tone down their rhetoric regarding the threat posed by Russia, arguing that some statements by European leaders and officials have undermined continental security ”.

It looks like the Pentagon is reading what you say about NATO and the EU wanting confrontation with Russia…

P

REPLY: I don’t know if I am too old compared to everyone else, but I remember the cold war and I remember how alliances are formed. I have stressed that these idiots like Kallas engage in her constant hate speech against the Russian people which would completely destroy Europe. There is NO WAY you can destroy Russia and ask China to please wait quietly for you turn. This is World War III and I have been screaming about this to people who seem to have never considered what their hate speech will lead to.

The EU is desperate. They need to create Unity fearing the French election will mean a threat to their existence all because of the LEFTIST stupid policies. The EU leaders were outraged that how dare two member even speak to Putin. My firm is NON-PARTISAN. We have offices from China to Dubai. Yes, I do interview on Russian TV. I like to hear the questions I am asked. How do you answer the question: What do they hate us so much? If you do not understand your enemy, you will lose. Perhaps these people should take at least some online course in military history.

Putin understands what is a stake with war. It will not be good for his people or Europe. Peace is simple. The Roman Empire is the example. It was economically beneficial to be within the empire than on the outside looking in.

Those on the outside made imitations of Roman coins for commerce. They were not counterfeits for the were of equal metal content. They still wanted to be part of the economic system of Rome be it from the Germanic tribes to India. World peace is created NOT by sanctions, but by INCLUSION, and you can quote me on that.

The Pax Romana typically lasted approximately 200 years, from 27 BC (the beginning of Augustus’s reign) to 180 AD (the death of Marcus Aurelius). Even Marcus Aurelius (161-180AD), perhaps the most intelligent world leader, understood war and peace. Read his Mediations. The central appeal I found from his Stoic philosophy, is its unflinching practicality. Aurelius returns again and again to a small set of principles: that only virtue is truly good, that judgment lies within our control while external events do not, and that tranquility comes from ordering the mind rather than ordering the world.

Because Marcus is writing to himself, the tone is not that of a lecturer but of a man coaching himself through the day. He saw TIME as a rushing river, the reminders that fame and grievance alike are fleeting, and the insistence on meeting other people’s failings with patience all retain their force. We allow the wrong people to seek power for it is like Kallas and her fellow Neocons including Zelensky, to carry out a personal agenda at the expense of the world.

Rome claimed to rule the world (orbis terrarum) yet it stood at the opposite end of the world from the strikingly similar Han Dynasty (206BC-220AD) in China, which also claimed to have ruled the world (tianxia). The History Book for Tang Dynasty in China covers the period 618-907AD. It mentions 17 times what appears to be the Roman Empire. It also describes an envoy that the Roman Emperor sent to China. The Roman Emperor was recorded to have been “Anton.” The account of such an envoy who visited the older Han Dynasty predates the Venetian traveler Marco Polo (1254-1325) by more than 1,000 years. This envoy has been attributed to 166AD during the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180AD).

This envoy established diplomatic contact at the peak of the Roman Empire, from which a disastrous decline began. Any political-economic aspirations to further such a relationship would then die with Marcus Aurelius. Yet also, both empires would suffer the same fate of barbarian invasions. The Han Dynasty fell in 220AD, emerging from the chaotic period known as the Three Kingdoms (220-280AD) – the division of the once unified Chinese Empire.

Marcus Aurelius’ death marked the peak of the Roman Empire and the turning point that began the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, where its monetary system collapsed just 72 years thereafter. His son, Commodus, tore everything his father had done to shreds and in the process, sealed the fate of Rome. We are in danger of the same decline and fall when people like Kallas, Zelensky, and their fellow Neocons, are so filled with hatred, that they rip the ver fabric of society apart at the seams.

The rumors are that European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has announced her resignation and will step down on February 7, well before a French presidential election that polls show far-right candidate Marine Le Pen is favor to win, all to intervene in the election to try to stop Le Pen. The EU is scared to death that a victory for Le Pen and the rise of AfD in Germany has put a target on the back of the EU itself.

This is the greatest danger of the EU trying to conjure up a false flag claiming Russia will invade to create unity to save itself. This has been why they have been talking with Carney to bring in Canada and for Britain to rejoin the EU. When asked directly whether Burnham would allow the UK to rejoin the EU’s freedom of movement system without a referendum, his answer was a clear “No”. He emphasized that he would “never get ahead of the British public on the Brexit issue.”

It is worth noting that Burnham has left some room for discussion regarding not fully rejoining the EU but merely moving closer to the single market or customs union. Reports indicate that he believes joining the single market or customs union may not necessarily require a referendum, but rather could seek a mandate through a general election. However, joining the single market typically means accepting freedom of movement, and he has explicitly stated that restoring freedom of movement without a referendum is not permitted.

As far as Canada is concerned, Carney has explicitly stated on multiple occasions that Canada is “not seeking to become a member of the European Union”. What he is promoting is a “unique alliance” that goes beyond traditional trade agreements but stops short of full membership. He has welcomed the EU’s proposal for “associate membership” and stated in the European Parliament that Canada is “open” to this concept.

The “associate membership” currently being discussed between Canada and the EU is not a legal status that already exists, but rather a special arrangement that is still being conceived. Its core feature is “association without accession”—meaning Canada will not become a formal EU member state and therefore will not be bound by the full body of EU law.

The EU has been trying to create the image of the UK and Canada hoining in some way becoming subordinate to Brussels in a desperate effort to fend off and exit from the EU by Germany and France. Between their migrant policies to ensure that the LEFT will retain a dominant power over Europe and the Freedom of Movement, they have undermined the very culture of the European people all to simply retain power.

Both Legarde and Ursula von der Leyen were board member of the World Economic Forum The appointments to top position in German government and then the head of the EU along with Kristalina Georgieva, the current head of the IMF, is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum (WEF). The entire scheme behind the EU has been the idea of a one world government that began with Europe. The COVID scam was used to create unity and the attempt of World Health Organization to dictate lock downs etc, all for climate change.

They flew a 16 year-old to preach to Alberta to surrender their jobs and stop drilling for oil to confirm to this Davos elite agenda.

The warmonger Khaja Kallas who is determined to create World War III has scrubbed her association with the WEF has been alleged to be an effort to hide the war agenda as a conspiracy. Yet, here is a video of Kallas explaining what a past foreign minister of the Soviet Union had to say about Europe. She then extrapolates this to how Russia is today. She seems to want to believe that Russia is still exactly the same as the Soviet Union, but with another name.

“The Foreign minister of the Soviet Union said that the tactics of Russia are actually threefold.

1. First, you present demands and ask for something that has never been yours.
2. Second, you present ultimatums and threats.
3. And third, you just wait, because there will always be people in the West who will offer you something you didn’t have before. So you just have to wait them out, because the Westerners will always fold.

Let’s not give him this.”

She ignores the fact that recent history shows it has been exactly the opposite. NATO has been getting closer to Russian borders, and it’s Russia who has folded. The old days of Khrushchev was a philosophy of Communism would defeat the inferior Capitalism, which all began with Marx trying to defeat the business cycle adopting the view that recessions were the result of flaws in capitalism as if there could be a perfect world. That collapsed. Putin was cheered by the people BECAUSE he was NOT a communist and they did NOT want to return to Communism. The entire foundation of what the USSR once believed collapsed as Marxism collapsed in China. Russia is a capitalist nation even more so than the EU censoring free speech and imprisoning people for what they right on Facebook.

Is it that she’s really incompetent, or is it that her personal hatred prevents her from actually looking at history objectively???? She is a HUGE danger for the EU and should be dragged out of any position remotely close to power. She will destroy Europe for her own Hate Speech. If she said this about an Arab, she would be in prison in Europe by now.

Britain has now committed £35 billion, approximately $47 billion, in military, economic, and financial support for Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in February 2022. Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced another £10 billion package on October 28, the largest single financial support package Britain has pledged to Kyiv. The British government continues promising to support Ukraine for as long as necessary, but nobody seems particularly concerned about how long British taxpayers can afford to finance these commitments. Britain is struggling with enormous sovereign debt, stagnant economic growth, deteriorating public services, and a population that has already endured years of inflation. Yet Westminster continues making financial promises to another government without establishing any clear limit on the total obligation.

The latest package includes £7 billion in economic assistance over three years and an additional £3 billion in export-finance capacity, primarily intended to support military equipment and reconstruction projects. The government has also announced £500 million in additional military assistance for Ukrainian air defenses ahead of winter. Burnham declared, “This is the largest ever package of funding for Ukraine from the UK,” while promising continued support for as long as the conflict requires. Zelensky welcomed the announcement as evidence that Britain would not abandon Ukraine. But the question British taxpayers should be asking is how these commitments are being financed and what additional obligations may follow.

Britain has now committed £35 billion to Ukraine, an increase of £10 billion from the £25 billion reported before October 28. Of that total, £16 billion is allocated to military assistance, including £2.26 billion through the G7 loan arrangement, while another £12.6 billion covers economic assistance and financial commitments, and £6.5 billion represents export-finance capacity for reconstruction and defense projects.

Britain has also pledged at least £3 billion annually in military assistance through 2030–2031 and potentially beyond. Britain is already drowning in sovereign debt, struggling to finance its own public services, and watching the purchasing power of its citizens deteriorate. Nevertheless, its politicians continue making financial commitments to a foreign war that extend years into the future, leaving British taxpayers responsible for obligations they never directly approved and whose ultimate cost remains unknown.

The military spending alone is extraordinary. According to figures provided to Parliament, Britain committed £2.5 billion during the 2022–2023 financial year, £2.3 billion in 2023–2024, £3 billion in 2024–2025, and £3.2 billion in 2025–2026. The total rises when you include contributions through the G7 loan arrangement. Britain has also trained more than 67,000 Ukrainian military personnel under Operation Interflex and committed substantial quantities of drones, missiles, armored equipment, and air-defense systems. This is no longer a limited emergency response to an invasion. It has become a sustained component of British military and fiscal policy.

Public sector net debt has remained near 100% of GDP, while debt-interest payments consume resources that could otherwise support domestic priorities. The government must finance the National Health Service, pensions, welfare, infrastructure, education, and its own defense establishment. Households have faced substantial increases in energy bills, food prices, housing costs, and taxation since the pandemic. The cumulative increase in the cost of living cannot be reversed simply because the monthly inflation rate moderates. Prices remain elevated, and many families have experienced a permanent deterioration in purchasing power.

The government is now asking those same households to accept another enormous international commitment. A £10 billion package represents approximately £370 for each of Britain’s 27 million households, although that calculation is only an illustration of the headline commitment rather than an actual household tax bill. The distinction matters because much of the package consists of financial guarantees and export-finance capacity rather than immediate expenditure. Still, the scale is substantial. British citizens are entitled to ask whether these commitments represent the best use of public resources and how the government intends to account for the financial risks.

What is particularly revealing is the composition of the new package. Up to £5.5 billion will be made available through World Bank guarantees, while another £500 million will contribute to a World Bank crisis facility intended to mobilize additional assistance. The government is also expanding UK Export Finance capacity by £3 billion, bringing the total available coverage to £6.5 billion. These arrangements allow governments to support foreign financing without immediately disbursing the full face value of the commitments. Politicians naturally prefer announcing the largest possible headline figure because it creates the impression of decisive action. But guarantees still carry financial risks, and the public deserves to understand the circumstances under which the Treasury could become responsible for losses.

Britain is also providing substantial humanitarian and economic assistance. The government has committed up to £611 million in humanitarian support for Ukraine and the surrounding region since the invasion, along with hundreds of millions for energy security, infrastructure repair, and economic recovery. Some of these programs are intended to maintain electricity, heating, water supplies, and essential public services as Russia continues attacking Ukrainian infrastructure.

The British government has also entered into a 100-year partnership with Ukraine covering security, trade, technology, and economic cooperation. That agreement demonstrates how far the relationship has moved beyond emergency assistance. London is committing itself to a long-term strategic role in Ukraine’s future while the war remains unresolved. The government argues that such commitments will strengthen security and encourage eventual reconstruction. Yet reconstruction itself will require enormous financial resources, and there is still no comprehensive settlement establishing how Ukraine’s future security arrangements will operate. Britain is assuming responsibilities whose ultimate financial dimensions remain uncertain.

Britain did not start this war, and its citizens should not be expected to accept unlimited financial obligations without a clear explanation of the national interest, the fiscal consequences, and the conditions under which assistance might end. The politicians speak as though £10 billion is simply another number that can be announced at a press conference. For ordinary households, however, government spending eventually has consequences through taxation, borrowing costs, and the allocation of public resources. Britain has now committed £35 billion to Ukraine, and its leaders have made clear that the financial relationship will continue. The fundamental question is how much more Britain can reasonably undertake while its own sovereign debt burden and domestic financial pressures continue to grow. No government possesses unlimited resources, regardless of how often its politicians promise to spend whatever is necessary.