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.

The primary driver of the rupee’s recent movement has been the conflict between the US-Israel alliance and Iran. India has stated that the conflict has had a “debilitating impact on the global economy and energy supplies.”  As a major importer of oil, India is vulnerable to price shocks and supply chain disruptions. The rupee hit an all-time low primarily due to the war. The currency appears poised to strengthened sharply on the back of falling crude oil prices, if President Donald Trump can at least extract the US from this conflict.

The Reserve Bank of India has actively managed the situation. It has been intervening in the forex market to prevent excessive volatility and has announced specific measures to attract dollar inflows, which has helped stabilize the currency.

The conflict between George Soros and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a clash of ideologies and interests. Soros, a supporter of his “open societies,” and is an outspoken critic of Modi’s Hindu nationalist politics. This has led the BJP to label him a foreign threat attempting to destabilize India by funding opposition parties and critical media.

Soros has openly criticized the Modi government for its policies, which he views as creating a “Hindu nationalist state” and threatening India’s secular fabric. At the World Economic Forum in 2020, he specifically expressed concern over policies in Kashmir and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). His “open society” ideals fundamentally clash with the BJP’s “Hindu nationalist” agenda.

Nevertheless, George Soros has been funding opposition to Modi and many see this as his political meddling to force his political views upon the world. This has had the realization that people like George Soros and Bill Gates share a specific worldview where they try to alter societies based on personal beliefs.

This dynamic duo seem to believe that solving big global problems (pandemics, climate change, extreme poverty, political instability) is good for everyone, including themselves and their descendants. A world with fewer refugees, more stable democracies, and less disease is a safer, more predictable, and more prosperous world for their businesses and families. This is their egotistic Enlightened Self-Interest.

Both have signed the Giving Pledge (started by Gates and Warren Buffett), committing to give away the majority of their wealth. They argue that if you have been extraordinarily lucky—born in the right country, with the right talents, at the right time—you have a moral obligation to use that wealth to help others, not just pass it to your children.

Unlike traditional charity (feeding the hungry today), Gates and Soros practice strategic philanthropy. They identify a root cause (e.g., malaria is caused by a parasite, weak rule of law enables corruption) and fund targeted interventions. They are not imposing a random opinion; they are imposing what they believe to be the most effective, evidence-based solution. In finance, we call this a crime as market intervention.

Because they “IMPOSE” their personal views upon the world using money instead of military interventions, this is why people get uncomfortable. They don’t have armies or governments, but they have two powerful tools. With tens of billions of dollars, they can fund think tanks, university departments, legal advocacy groups, and media outlets buying the press to boost their images, which Gates is famous for. They can launch global health campaigns (Gates) or pro-democracy civil society organizations (Soros) in dozens of countries simultaneously. This scale can drown out local voices or less-funded alternative views.

They have mastered the Conditional Grants. This is the key. When they give a grant, it almost always comes with strict conditions. For example, the Gates Foundation admits:

“We will give your country $10 billion for vaccines, but you must adopt these specific electronic health records, meet these quarterly reporting metrics, and co-fund the delivery system.”

Soros’ Open Society Foundations states:

“We will fund your anti-corruption NGO, but your advocacy must focus on judicial independence and freedom of information laws, not on economic nationalism or religious identity.”

This is imposing a view. They are using money to buy leverage, requiring recipients to adopt their preferred methodology and priorities. Buying politicians is very anti-democratic and funds the very corruption they claim to oppose.

These tactics are highly controversial, while we don’t criticize a local billionaire for building a hospital, but far too often the strings are hidden. There is just no Democratic Accountability. A government is voted in. A corporate board answers to shareholders. Soros and Gates answer to nobody. They have immense power to shape policy on education (Gates’ early school reform push was widely criticized as a failure that imposed a top-down model) or criminal justice (Soros’ funding for progressive prosecutors has outraged conservatives who see it as importing American ideology into their local elections).

The assumption that a computer programmer (Gates) and a hedge fund manager (Soros) know the best way to run agricultural policy in Tanzania or public health in India can seem deeply condescending. Critics call it a new age of imperial “colonialism”—extracting local problems and forcing solutions designed in Seattle or New York. They may not be kings seated on a throne, but they have self-anointed themselves to oversee the world.

Critics note that Gates made his fortune with monopolistic business practices that crushed competitors, and Soros made his by speculating on currency devaluations (e.g., “breaking the Bank of England” in 1992). They argue it’s galling for these men to now pose as the world’s moral architects.

Why Do They Do It?
From their perspective, they have unique resources, a clear view of the most urgent global problems, and a moral duty to act on their evidence-based beliefs. Not acting, they’d argue, would be irresponsible.

From a neutral perspective, they trying to shape the world according to their values. They simply have an almost unimaginable amount of money to do it with. The debate is whether their specific values (liberal democracy, scientific rationalism, globalism) and methods (top-down, conditional funding) are beneficial or harmful.

From a critical perspective, they are unelected oligarchs using tax-free foundations to override local democracies and impose a narrow, technocratic worldview that serves the interests of global capital under the guise of altruism. Merely having the resources to act, and the pretense of modern philanthropy allows them to impose conditions on their gifts. This is not a heroic problem-solving venture, but a problematic power-grabbing agenda that all depends on their character.

The primary driver of the rupee’s recent movement has been the conflict between the US-Israel alliance and Iran. India has stated that the conflict has had a “debilitating impact on the global economy and energy supplies.”  As a major importer of oil, India is vulnerable to price shocks and supply chain disruptions. The rupee hit an all-time low primarily due to the war. The currency appears poised to strengthened sharply on the back of falling crude oil prices, if President Donald Trump can at least extract the US from this conflict.

The Reserve Bank of India has actively managed the situation. It has been intervening in the forex market to prevent excessive volatility and has announced specific measures to attract dollar inflows, which has helped stabilize the currency.

The conflict between George Soros and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a clash of ideologies and interests. Soros, a supporter of his “open societies,” and is an outspoken critic of Modi’s Hindu nationalist politics. This has led the BJP to label him a foreign threat attempting to destabilize India by funding opposition parties and critical media.

Soros has openly criticized the Modi government for its policies, which he views as creating a “Hindu nationalist state” and threatening India’s secular fabric. At the World Economic Forum in 2020, he specifically expressed concern over policies in Kashmir and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). His “open society” ideals fundamentally clash with the BJP’s “Hindu nationalist” agenda.

Nevertheless, George Soros has been funding opposition to Modi and many see this as his political meddling to force his political views upon the world. This has had the realization that people like George Soros and Bill Gates share a specific worldview where they try to alter societies based on personal beliefs.

This dynamic duo seem to believe that solving big global problems (pandemics, climate change, extreme poverty, political instability) is good for everyone, including themselves and their descendants. A world with fewer refugees, more stable democracies, and less disease is a safer, more predictable, and more prosperous world for their businesses and families. This is their egotistic Enlightened Self-Interest.

Both have signed the Giving Pledge (started by Gates and Warren Buffett), committing to give away the majority of their wealth. They argue that if you have been extraordinarily lucky—born in the right country, with the right talents, at the right time—you have a moral obligation to use that wealth to help others, not just pass it to your children.

Unlike traditional charity (feeding the hungry today), Gates and Soros practice strategic philanthropy. They identify a root cause (e.g., malaria is caused by a parasite, weak rule of law enables corruption) and fund targeted interventions. They are not imposing a random opinion; they are imposing what they believe to be the most effective, evidence-based solution. In finance, we call this a crime as market intervention.

Because they “IMPOSE” their personal views upon the world using money instead of military interventions, this is why people get uncomfortable. They don’t have armies or governments, but they have two powerful tools. With tens of billions of dollars, they can fund think tanks, university departments, legal advocacy groups, and media outlets buying the press to boost their images, which Gates is famous for. They can launch global health campaigns (Gates) or pro-democracy civil society organizations (Soros) in dozens of countries simultaneously. This scale can drown out local voices or less-funded alternative views.

They have mastered the Conditional Grants. This is the key. When they give a grant, it almost always comes with strict conditions. For example, the Gates Foundation admits:

“We will give your country $10 billion for vaccines, but you must adopt these specific electronic health records, meet these quarterly reporting metrics, and co-fund the delivery system.”

Soros’ Open Society Foundations states:

“We will fund your anti-corruption NGO, but your advocacy must focus on judicial independence and freedom of information laws, not on economic nationalism or religious identity.”

This is imposing a view. They are using money to buy leverage, requiring recipients to adopt their preferred methodology and priorities. Buying politicians is very anti-democratic and funds the very corruption they claim to oppose.

These tactics are highly controversial, while we don’t criticize a local billionaire for building a hospital, but far too often the strings are hidden. There is just no Democratic Accountability. A government is voted in. A corporate board answers to shareholders. Soros and Gates answer to nobody. They have immense power to shape policy on education (Gates’ early school reform push was widely criticized as a failure that imposed a top-down model) or criminal justice (Soros’ funding for progressive prosecutors has outraged conservatives who see it as importing American ideology into their local elections).

The assumption that a computer programmer (Gates) and a hedge fund manager (Soros) know the best way to run agricultural policy in Tanzania or public health in India can seem deeply condescending. Critics call it a new age of imperial “colonialism”—extracting local problems and forcing solutions designed in Seattle or New York. They may not be kings seated on a throne, but they have self-anointed themselves to oversee the world.

Critics note that Gates made his fortune with monopolistic business practices that crushed competitors, and Soros made his by speculating on currency devaluations (e.g., “breaking the Bank of England” in 1992). They argue it’s galling for these men to now pose as the world’s moral architects.

Why Do They Do It?
From their perspective, they have unique resources, a clear view of the most urgent global problems, and a moral duty to act on their evidence-based beliefs. Not acting, they’d argue, would be irresponsible.

From a neutral perspective, they trying to shape the world according to their values. They simply have an almost unimaginable amount of money to do it with. The debate is whether their specific values (liberal democracy, scientific rationalism, globalism) and methods (top-down, conditional funding) are beneficial or harmful.

From a critical perspective, they are unelected oligarchs using tax-free foundations to override local democracies and impose a narrow, technocratic worldview that serves the interests of global capital under the guise of altruism. Merely having the resources to act, and the pretense of modern philanthropy allows them to impose conditions on their gifts. This is not a heroic problem-solving venture, but a problematic power-grabbing agenda that all depends on their character.

An example of someone imposing their views on another country is none other that Carl Christian Schurz (1829-1906) who was a refugee from Germany fleeing to the USA after their failed 1848 European Revolution. It was Schurz who deliberately sought political power in the USA to impose what he failed to achieve in Germany. They became known as the Forty-Eighters. Schurz became an adviser to Abraham Lincoln and  recommended Lincoln enter the American Civil War.

Schurz was a crucial asset to Lincoln, primarily for his ability to mobilize the German-American vote, a key constituency for the Republican Party, which at the time was counting on the refugees from the 1848 European Revolution. In recognition of Schurz’s efforts during the 1860 campaign, Lincoln appointed him as Minister to Spain in 1861.

Once the war began, Schurz was eager to serve directly, initially requesting to raise a cavalry regiment. The correspondence between them shows Lincoln actively managing Schurz’s career, hoping to make him a brigadier general over German regiments.

In this sense, you have a non-American, seeking to gain political access, to instigate the civil war after failing and having to flee from Germany as was the case for Karl Marx. This immigration is what infected the United States with Marxist theories that fermented during the second half of the 19th century. Many in Europe today see the vast influx of immigrants, especially into Britain, which has altered its very culture and character.

PRIVATE BLOG – Iran & Peace Deal

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/

One of the goals of our upcoming Tampa event is to help educate and inspire the next generation of independent thinkers. That’s why we’re excited to announce a new Student Discount for our upcoming in-person event:

Understanding the World Economy with Martin Armstrong

Tampa Marriott Water Street
Tampa, Florida
Saturday, July 25, 2026
2:00 PM – 6:00 PM

Students can now receive 50% OFF admission. Simply select “Student” during registration and complete the required field. The discount will be applied automatically at checkout. No coupon code is required.

This event is designed for anyone who wants to better understand how the world really works. We will explore the cyclical nature of history, geopolitical trends, societal behavior, economic fundamentals, capital flows, and the forces driving change around the globe. Whether you are a student, business owner, investor, professional, retiree, or simply someone seeking a deeper understanding of current events, this seminar is for you.

At just four hours, this unique summer event is designed to deliver a tremendous amount of insight while leaving plenty of time to enjoy everything Florida has to offer. It is also the perfect opportunity to introduce friends, family members, colleagues, and students to Martin Armstrong’s work and the concepts behind the Economic Confidence Model.

With growing uncertainty around the world, there has never been a more important time to understand the larger forces shaping our future.

In-person seating is limited and tickets are sold online only. Tickets will not be available at the door.

We look forward to seeing you in Tampa this July 25!

Register today:
https://armstrongeconomics.ticketspice.com/understanding-world-economy

The Producer Price Index for May came in far hotter than expected, rising 1.1% for the month and 6.5% year-over-year, the largest annual increase since late 2022. What is important here is that nearly 80% of that increase came from goods, and energy was the driving force behind the move. Gasoline prices at the wholesale level surged more than 23% in a single month. Diesel fuel, jet fuel, natural gas, industrial chemicals, plastics, and transportation costs all moved sharply higher. This is exactly why I have repeatedly stated that energy is the lifeblood of the economy. Everything must be manufactured, transported, and delivered. When energy prices rise, they eventually work their way through the entire system.

The press continues to focus on consumer inflation, but wholesale inflation is often the more important indicator because it reveals what businesses are paying before those costs are passed on to the public. Companies absorbed much of the inflation shock over the past several years because consumers had reached their breaking point. That cushion is disappearing. Businesses cannot continue absorbing rising fuel, transportation, and raw material costs indefinitely. The result is that the inflation consumers are experiencing today is likely only the first stage of a broader wave working its way through the economy.

The politicians will blame corporations, speculators, or anyone else they can find, but the source of this inflation is staring everyone in the face. The conflict in the Middle East has disrupted shipping routes, threatened the Strait of Hormuz, and created uncertainty throughout global energy markets. Oil remains the foundation of modern civilization whether governments wish to admit it or not. The dream that governments could simply regulate away fossil fuels while simultaneously fighting wars was always detached from reality. Energy shortages and rising costs are now exposing the consequences of those policies.

What concerns me is that we are entering a period where inflation, war, and sovereign debt problems are converging at the same time. The Federal Reserve cannot solve an energy shortage with interest rates. Raising rates will not create more oil, open shipping lanes, or end geopolitical conflict. Meanwhile, governments continue spending as though debt no longer matters. The May PPI report is not simply another inflation statistic. It is a warning that the energy crisis is spreading through the economic system and that the inflation battle is far from over. As we move deeper into this Panic Cycle year, volatility in commodities, interest rates, and global capital flows should surprise no one.

UK Defence Secretary John Healey suddenly resigned because the government cannot find the money to fund military commitments. In his resignation letter, he openly accused Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the Treasury of refusing to commit the resources needed to defend the country at a time of rising geopolitical tensions. When a defence minister quits claiming the government cannot adequately fund national security, that is a warning sign far beyond politics. It is a signal that the financial reality has finally collided with political promises.

Britain’s economic condition is far worse than many appreciate. Government debt has climbed above £3 trillion, exceeding 100% of GDP. Interest payments on that debt have become one of the largest items in the national budget. The tax burden is at its highest level in decades, yet the government still cannot balance the books. Economic growth has been stagnant for years. Productivity growth has virtually disappeared. Manufacturing continues to shrink as a percentage of the economy while energy costs remain among the highest in the industrialized world. Britain now spends more servicing debt than it does on many essential public services. The government talks about expanding defence spending, expanding social programs, funding green initiatives, supporting Ukraine, and maintaining the welfare state, yet the numbers simply do not add up.

The dispute centers around Britain’s Defence Investment Plan. Healey reportedly wanted at least £18 billion in additional military funding through 2030, while military officials have warned of a £28 billion shortfall over the next four years. Instead, the proposed spending plan would only raise defence spending to roughly 2.68% of GDP by 2030, well below what military planners believe is necessary given the commitments Britain has made around the world. The government delayed the plan for months because the Treasury could not find the money.

Britain is trying to maintain global military commitments on an economy that has been steadily weakening for years. Governments always expand obligations during periods of prosperity and then discover during economic decline that they cannot afford the promises they have made. Britain wants to project military power from Eastern Europe to the Middle East, lead NATO initiatives in the Arctic, support Ukraine indefinitely, and modernize its armed forces, all while carrying massive debt burdens and facing weak economic growth.

The resignation of Healey exposes a much deeper problem. Britain is no longer debating how much it wants to spend. Britain is confronting the reality of how much it can afford. As we move deeper into the sovereign debt crisis unfolding across the Western world, more governments will face this same dilemma. They will discover that geopolitical ambitions are ultimately constrained by economic reality, and economic reality is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Bill Gates is the largest investor in vaccines and there’s a pandemic.

Bill Gates is the largest owner of land in America and there’s a food crisis.

Bill Gates is the largest investor in lab grown baby milk and there’s a baby formula crisis. pic.twitter.com/bgtG7LqV7Y

— illuminatibot (@iluminatibot) May 24, 2026

People have become so conditioned to thinking in partisan terms that they miss the larger issue entirely. The question is not whether Bill Gates is a good person or a bad person. The question is why one individual continually appears at the center of industries that later become critical during periods of crisis.

Bill Gates became one of the most influential private figures in global vaccination programs long before COVID. Through the Gates Foundation, billions of dollars have been directed into vaccine development, distribution, and organizations such as Gavi. The foundation has committed more than $4 billion to Gavi alone over the years and remains one of the most influential private actors in global vaccine policy. During COVID, the Gates Foundation committed hundreds of millions more toward vaccine development, manufacturing, and distribution worldwide. Nobody can seriously dispute that Gates became one of the most powerful private forces in the vaccine industry. Yet when a global pandemic arrived, suddenly vaccines became one of the most profitable and politically protected industries on earth.

Then there is agriculture. Bill Gates spent years quietly acquiring farmland across the United States until he became America’s largest private farmland owner, accumulating roughly 250,000 to 275,000 acres spread across numerous states. While many dismissed concerns by arguing that farmland is simply another investment, the timing remains extraordinary. Food inflation exploded. Supply chains broke down. Fertilizer shortages emerged. Farmers found themselves squeezed from every direction. Food security suddenly became a national discussion. Once again, one individual sat at the center of a strategic industry during a period of crisis.

Now consider infant nutrition. Gates-backed investment funds supported BIOMILQ, a startup attempting to produce human breast milk in laboratories using cultured cells. This was not science fiction. It was a real venture designed to create lab-produced breast milk as a commercial product. Around the same period, America experienced one of the worst baby formula shortages in modern history. The shortage stemmed from manufacturing disruptions and supply chain failures coincidentally tied to COVID.

Gates infamously speaks on controlling the population. “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [population growth] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent,” he stated. When an influential billionaire who funds vaccine programs and bankrolls the World Health Organization buys vast amounts of farmland, finances alternative food technologies, and speaks about managing population growth all at the same time, people are going to ask questions. You cannot expect the public to ignore those connections.

The establishment immediately labels anyone who notices these patterns a conspiracy theorist. That is how debate is shut down before it begins. Yet concentration of power has always been a legitimate concern. When banking became concentrated, governments eventually regulated it. When railroads became concentrated, governments intervened. When media became concentrated, concerns emerged over influence and control. Why should food, medicine, agriculture, and biotechnology be treated differently?

The same people who finance vaccines finance health policy. The same people buying farmland finance agricultural innovation. The same investors funding synthetic food products dictate the future of nutrition. All distinction between private influence and public policy has disappeared.

What concerns me is where this trend leads. We are moving toward a world where food production, healthcare, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, digital identity systems, and financial systems are increasingly controlled by a shrinking circle of institutions and individuals. That concentration creates systemic risk. If they are wrong, everyone suffers. If their interests diverge from the public’s interests, society has few alternatives.

History warns that whenever too much influence accumulates in too few hands, the public eventually pays the price. The issue is the system that allows any private individual to become influential across so many strategic sectors at the same time. That is the lesson people should be paying attention to, because concentration of power has never ended well, regardless of who holds it.