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.

As of November 2026, Jensen Huang has resigned from his position as CEO of NVIDIA amid investigations related to personal conduct and potential national security concerns all over a honey trap. This all came after reports of several affairs, especially one with a woman the US reportedly suspects is a Chinese spy. It is a shame because he was apparently unaware of this scheme. I was warned back in the ’80s, be careful, they will always use a girl to into your company. I would simply have to hold up the silver cross and say get away.

One member of Congress went on an official trip to China and they naturally had a very good looking girl as their guide. She took photos and offered them to the Congressman holding her phone next to his. I was then informed that they took all his contacts and data that fast and my phone number and contact info was compromised.

This is the world we live in. I feel bad for him. The jokes are flowing already. I disagree that he should have been forced to resign. This is the type of person you now keep for he will not make the same mistake again. They bring in someone new, and they are unaware of honey-traps and they can fall victim all over again.

I will not mention the name of the country, that will be for the Memoir, but I was asked to open an office there and stock it with women so a certain royal head of state could visit the office and pretend it was for economic advice. I declined, even though I would have received more than $10 billion to manage the office.

Anna Chapman was a Russian Spy caught in New York City. She was swapped for American spies in 2010 and made headlines in New York. She was stunningly beautiful as well as stunningly successful. Well, if you are going to betray secrets, this is far better than the rubber hose treatment. She scored with politicians.

They called her Putin’s Weapon of Mass Distraction.

Welcome to the Real World of “Sex, Lies, and Videotape“ (1989).

In 1960, Science, one of the world’s leading science journals, published an article with an unambiguous title: Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D. 2026. It predicted that on this future date — less than a month from today — the human population would approach infinity and effectively annihilate itself.

This was a rehash of the Populationosts theory ,which was instituted by Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834). It was Malthus who first published his “Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society” in 1798. He published it anonymously, afraid to put his name on it, but he was soon discovered to be the author. Malthus argued that the resources of production would be exceeded by the population leading to real misery.

Malthus’ theory proved to be completely wrong because he too failed to comprehend that there are cycles to everything. He never considered the cycle in technology and how farming has improved from ancient times up to his own time during the 18th century. Of course, food production has more than kept pace with population growth and even the population goes through cycles. Currently, birth rates have been declining. Then there are diseases and plagues that visit our societies, not to mention war, which all combines to thin the herd so to speak.

The climate has ALWAYS moved cyclically. Anyone who dares to argue that climate change is NOT caused by humans is ridiculed because this is a political issue being used to raise taxes and to regulate human activity by removing ever-greater proportions of our human rights and freedom. Those who attack anyone who denies human-induced climate change are either brainwashed or have a self-interest in the entire scam.

Gates’ father, I believe, was linked to the Rockefeller Foundation and Planned Parenthood all intended to reduce this threat of overpopulation, among minorities in particular. The Rockefeller Foundation was significantly concerned about overpopulation and was one of the major philanthropic institutions that actively funded and promoted population control and family planning initiatives globally, particularly from the mid-20th century onward.

In its 1968 annual report, the Rockefeller Foundation revealed it had absorbed $20 million of its resources into population control over the previous five years. The majority of this went toward teaching and applying family planning, with $5 million allocated to fundamental research in reproductive biology.

The computer had a Panic Cycle for 2021 on US population. You can see the nose dive that took place..

The Roman emperor most famously concerned about declining birth rates among Romans was Augustus (Octavian), the first emperor. He was so worried about low birth rates among the citizenry that he enacted major moral and marriage legislation to try to reverse the trend. He issued coins showing his family as the model to have children. This coin is a rare silver denarius from 13BC depicting not only his grandsons but also his daughter Julia, with a wreath above her head, further emphasizing the dynastic line.

Ancient birth control was also a big industry in Roman times. The main product of Cyrene and the city of Barce was the silphium plant. The historian Pliny tells us that it was a veritable cure-all; it is said to have had hundreds of medicinal and cosmetic uses. It was used to treat everything from chills to fevers. Hippocrates tells us that it could be used as a poultice or to soothe the stomach. Cooks also used the plant in their recipes.

However, this plant was used as a type of birth control. Indeed, medical evidence from classical antiquity informs us that it was the drug of choice for contraception. The Greek physician Soranus of Ephesus suggested taking a dose of silphium “the size of a chick-pea” once a month, both to prevent conception and “destroy any already existing.” The ancient abortion pills.

It is also believed that the seed of this plant is where we get the image of love and the heart. It was so widely used that it is now extinct. The last surviving plant was said to have been given to Emperor Nero. Valentine Heart

No matter what the field, the forecasts are always linear. The stock market crashes today and they immediate expect the trend to continue. With population, they fail to ever understand there is not just a cycle behind population, but the more affluent a society becomes, the fewer children are born. In poor countries, population rises because you retirement is your children who will then take care of you as you go out from this world in diapers.

The opening of the borders in Europe and the United States was for two objectives. (1) it was the Great Replacement Theory because this was political as the support for the LEFT was declining. (2) they also saw that population was declining and they needed more bodies to eventually pay into their pension schemes to avoid bankruptcy.

CNN called the Midterms and “extinction level” implying they won, the Republicans are finished, and they will now transform the United States into a Socialist’s dreamland like France with everything free.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has apparently lost all sense of reality. He is now lecturing Portugal and Spain about their attitudes toward the war in Ukraine, as though these countries have unlimited funds to finance a conflict involving a nation that is not even a NATO member. Portugal is struggling with housing affordability, public healthcare, education, and the rising cost of living. Yet Rutte believes these governments should be thinking about how quickly Russian missiles could reach Lisbon rather than the economic problems confronting their own citizens. This is the mentality of the unelected bureaucrats running NATO. They have become so obsessed with Russia that they seem to regard the domestic needs of European taxpayers as an inconvenience.

Rutte claimed during an interview with Dutch television that he sometimes hears Portuguese and Spanish officials dismiss the war in Ukraine as distant, something that primarily concerns Poland and the countries bordering Russia. He responded by warning that modern Russian missiles would take only five minutes longer to reach Lisbon than Warsaw. What an extraordinary statement from the head of a military alliance that is supposed to provide security and prevent war. Instead of explaining how NATO intends to reduce the danger of a direct confrontation with Russia, Rutte is using the possibility of missile strikes against Portugal to frighten its population into accepting his geopolitical priorities. Apparently, the answer to every problem in Europe is to spend more money on the military and keep financing Ukraine.

Portuguese Prime Minister Luís Montenegro was furious. He described Rutte’s comments as “unfortunate” and “completely out of touch with reality,” adding that the NATO secretary general had demonstrated ignorance of a situation he should understand. Portugal’s Foreign Ministry also criticized the carelessness of his remarks. Montenegro pointed to Eurobarometer figures showing that 92% of Portuguese respondents consider Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a threat to European Union security, compared with an EU average of 76%.

Portugal has provided hundreds of millions of euros in direct assistance since the war began in 2022. The Kiel Institute’s Ukraine Support Tracker puts its bilateral military, financial, and humanitarian allocations at approximately €385 million through August 2026. A broader estimate that includes Portugal’s share of European Union assistance and the cost of hosting Ukrainian refugees places its contribution at approximately €1.3 billion. These figures measure different forms of assistance and should not be confused, but they demonstrate that Portugal has made a substantial commitment relative to its economic size. Portugal is not Germany, France, or the United States. It is a nation of roughly 10.7 million people with its own fiscal constraints and enormous domestic demands.

Where does Rutte imagine this money comes from? Portugal has young people who cannot afford housing in the cities where they work. Families are struggling with rents and living expenses, while public hospitals and schools face persistent demands for additional resources. The government must finance pensions, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and the ordinary responsibilities of running a country. Yet European leaders are being pressured to allocate ever greater sums toward military expenditure while continuing to support Ukraine. The politicians discuss percentages of GDP as though they are moving numbers around on a computer screen. Those percentages represent real resources extracted from the productive economy.

NATO’s own figures reveal how far these commitments have expanded. At the 2024 Washington summit, allies agreed to a baseline of €40 billion in annual security assistance for Ukraine. At the 2026 Ankara summit, they pledged €70 billion in military equipment, assistance, and training for 2026, with a commitment to sustain at least an equivalent level in 2027. Ukraine is not a NATO member and does not enjoy the collective-defense protection of Article 5. NATO members have nevertheless made enormous commitments to its defense. There is a legitimate debate about the strategic value of that support, but there must also be a limit to what governments can promise without considering their own financial condition.

Rutte seems to believe that every European nation should organize its finances around the possibility of a future war with Russia. That is an extraordinarily dangerous way to govern. Military preparedness is a legitimate responsibility of NATO members, but there is a fundamental difference between defending one’s own territory and financing a prolonged foreign conflict. Portugal has every right to decide how much assistance it can afford while meeting its obligations to its own citizens. Membership in NATO does not eliminate the responsibility of elected governments to balance national security with the economic welfare of the people they represent.

The irony is that Rutte spent years as prime minister of the Netherlands before becoming NATO secretary general. He knows perfectly well that governments face competing demands for limited resources. Yet from Brussels, he now lectures other countries about the urgency of spending more on defense. It is always easier to demand expenditures when someone else is responsible for collecting the taxes and explaining the cuts.

Europe is increasingly organizing its economy around the expectation of prolonged confrontation with Russia. That affects energy policy, industrial investment, government budgets, and international capital flows. Resources that could support productive infrastructure and private investment are redirected toward military procurement. Some defense spending strengthens domestic industry, but it does not automatically generate the same economic benefits as investments chosen for their productive return. A continent already suffering from declining competitiveness cannot assume that permanent military expansion will solve its economic problems.

Portugal’s prime minister was correct to challenge Rutte’s characterization of his country. The Portuguese people have already demonstrated considerable support for Ukraine, and their government has contributed financially and militarily despite domestic pressures. That does not give NATO’s secretary general the right to demand unlimited sacrifices. The alliance exists to protect its members, and its leadership should be concerned with preserving peace rather than frightening populations with hypothetical missile attacks.

This is the arrogance of a political class that has forgotten whom governments are supposed to serve. National defense is essential, but bankrupting member states in the name of security ultimately weakens the very alliance Rutte is supposed to lead. Portugal has supported Ukraine, recognized the threat of war, and remained committed to NATO. Its people should not be treated as insufficiently loyal because they also expect their government to finance hospitals, schools, and housing. Europe cannot preserve its security by sacrificing its economic foundation, and no amount of fearmongering from Brussels will change that reality.

Iranian businesses have reported an astonishing $34 BILLION in economic losses from forced closures and disruptions during the year ending March 2026. According to the Iran Chamber of Commerce, businesses lost approximately 22% of their potential operating time, with 61 days of compulsory closures and another 190 days disrupted by electricity shortages, gas shortages, internet shutdowns, civil unrest, and war. Think about that. A country sitting on some of the largest energy reserves in the world cannot even provide its own industries with reliable electricity. The government is so consumed with maintaining political control and confronting foreign enemies that the productive economy is being strangled. Iran’s leadership can boast about military strength all it likes, but an economy cannot survive when businesses are repeatedly ordered to shut their doors.

The economic figures are becoming catastrophic. Industrial producer prices rose 147.3% year-over-year during the summer of 2026, according to figures attributed to Iran’s Statistical Center. Mining producer prices increased 107.7%, while electricity prices surged 111.2%. The four-quarter average industrial producer inflation rate reached 97.3%. These are the prices businesses must confront before their products ever reach consumers. When the cost of production more than doubles, manufacturers have few options. They can raise prices, reduce output, dismiss workers, or close entirely. The government can manipulate statistics and attempt to control prices, but it cannot force a business to operate indefinitely at a loss. This is how inflation destroys an economy from within.

I have explained countless times that inflation is the destruction of purchasing power, and governments are primarily responsible for creating the conditions that allow it to accelerate. Iran has been dealing with chronic currency depreciation, sanctions, excessive government intervention, and a collapse in confidence. War has made these problems considerably worse, but they did not begin with the latest military confrontation. The Iranian rial has suffered repeated devaluations as people seek to protect whatever savings they have left. When confidence in a currency disappears, people rush to exchange it for anything they believe will retain value. Gold, foreign currencies, property, and tangible goods become preferable to holding money that is losing purchasing power. Governments call this speculation, but it is simply the public attempting to survive.

The destruction is spreading through the labor market. Reports indicate that approximately 450,000 jobs disappeared in spring 2026 compared with the previous year, including more than 600,000 industrial positions. The unemployment rate rose from 7.3% to 9.1%, while labor-force participation declined. GDP reportedly contracted 10.1% year-over-year during the spring, and fixed capital formation fell 8.4%. These figures reveal something far more serious than a temporary interruption caused by war. Businesses are losing employees, production is declining, and investment in future capacity is disappearing. Once investment collapses, the economy loses its ability to recover. Factories cannot modernize, machinery cannot be replaced, and companies cannot expand when they have no confidence that they will be permitted to operate tomorrow.

Nearly 92% of industrial bank lending during the first three months of the Iranian year reportedly went toward working capital rather than expansion. That is an alarming indication of how desperate the situation has become. Businesses are borrowing simply to survive their existing operations. They are not investing in new factories or expanding production. They are struggling to pay suppliers, purchase materials, and keep employees on the payroll. Around 1,400 war-damaged businesses were reportedly awaiting reconstruction loans. What good is a loan to rebuild a factory if the government cannot guarantee electricity, natural gas, transportation, or access to markets? You cannot rebuild an economy through lending alone when the fundamental conditions required for production have been destroyed.

The sanctions imposed by the West have compounded Iran’s economic problems, particularly by restricting access to international banking, investment, and technology. Yet sanctions alone cannot explain the scale of domestic mismanagement. A government must still provide the basic infrastructure required for its economy to function. The war has added destruction and uncertainty to an already weakened system, while military expenditures compete with desperately needed civilian investment. Both sides of this confrontation should understand that economic warfare does not merely punish political leaders. It destroys businesses, employment, and the savings of ordinary people who have little influence over the decisions being made in Tehran or Washington.

People can endure hardship for a period, but there is a limit to how long a government can demand sacrifice while providing no credible prospect of improvement. Inflation destroys savings, unemployment destroys household income, and shortages undermine daily life. Civil unrest becomes increasingly likely when people conclude that the political system is incapable of correcting the economic crisis. I have warned that civil unrest rises as confidence in government deteriorates. Iran is demonstrating how economic deterioration can feed political instability, particularly when the authorities respond to public frustration with further restrictions.

The Iranian government cannot bomb, censor, or regulate its way out of this crisis. It needs functioning infrastructure, productive investment, stable commercial conditions, and confidence that businesses will be permitted to operate without constant interruption. The $34 billion estimate is especially revealing because it reflects losses from a combination of disruptions, not merely direct damage from war. Even if the fighting stopped tomorrow, the underlying economic problems would remain. Repairing a damaged power station is one thing. Restoring confidence after years of currency depreciation, political uncertainty, and economic mismanagement is an entirely different undertaking.

Iran is entering an extremely dangerous period in which the deterioration of the economy threatens to become a crisis of political legitimacy. Its leadership continues speaking about geopolitical victories while the businesses responsible for supporting the country are being driven toward bankruptcy. Industrial prices are exploding, investment is contracting, and workers are losing their livelihoods. The government may control the military and the security apparatus, but it cannot command capital to invest or force consumers to trust a currency. When confidence disappears, no amount of political propaganda can restore it. Iran’s greatest threat may ultimately come from the economic destruction taking place within its own borders.

China has declared Israel a friend and important economic partner despite its disagreements with the Israeli government over Iran and Somaliland. Chinese Ambassador Xiao Junzheng stated, “Israel is a friend of China and an important partner.” Beijing understands that maintaining economic relationships with competing nations is far more advantageous than destroying trade every time a diplomatic disagreement arises. Meanwhile, Washington and Brussels have become obsessed with dividing the world into opposing political camps, imposing sanctions, and demanding that countries sacrifice their economic interests in the name of geopolitical loyalty.

China condemned the US-Israeli strikes against Iran and opposed Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, yet it has maintained its commercial relationship with Israel. Beijing also continues purchasing Iranian oil while conducting extensive business with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These countries have conflicting political and security interests, but China has no intention of abandoning profitable relationships merely because their governments disagree. Beijing is positioning itself to benefit from capital flows throughout the Middle East rather than tying its economic future to any single political alliance.

China and Israel established diplomatic relations in 1992, and their economic relationship has expanded through technology, manufacturing, and infrastructure. Chinese companies have participated in major Israeli projects, including the Bayport Terminal in Haifa and transportation infrastructure. Israel possesses considerable expertise in cybersecurity, agriculture, medical technology, and advanced manufacturing, while China has the industrial capacity to commercialize technology on a massive scale. Ambassador Xiao acknowledged this complementary relationship. China recognizes that Israeli innovation and Chinese manufacturing can create opportunities for both economies regardless of their political differences.

The Somaliland dispute illustrates the distinction between strategic interests and economic cooperation. Israel recognized Somaliland as an independent state in December 2025, while China opposed the decision and reaffirmed its support for Somalia’s territorial integrity. Beijing maintains a military base in neighboring Djibouti, near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a critical passage connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Suez Canal. China has substantial interests in protecting international shipping routes because its economy depends upon global trade. Yet this disagreement has not caused Beijing to abandon its relationship with Israel. China understands that diplomacy and commerce do not always have to move together.

Compare this with Europe, where politicians have been willing to sacrifice their own industrial competitiveness to pursue geopolitical objectives. Germany abandoned its former energy relationship with Russia and exposed its manufacturing sector to substantially higher costs. European governments believed sanctions would cripple Russia while leaving their own economies relatively unharmed. Instead, trade was redirected. Russia expanded commercial relationships with China, India, and other countries while European industries struggled with expensive energy. The politicians in Brussels seem incapable of understanding that restricting trade does not necessarily eliminate demand. It often transfers the business to someone else.

I have warned repeatedly that the weaponization of the financial system is accelerating this realignment. Freezing Russian reserves and excluding Russian banks from SWIFT demonstrated that access to Western financial infrastructure could become conditional upon political obedience. China took notice. Beijing has been expanding alternative payment arrangements and encouraging greater use of the yuan in international commerce. These developments do not mean the dollar is about to disappear as the world’s reserve currency. They demonstrate that governments are attempting to reduce their exposure to political decisions made in Washington. Confidence in the financial system is essential to international capital flows, and once that confidence is undermined, nations begin searching for alternatives.

China’s relationships across the Middle East reflect a deliberate effort to preserve access to energy, technology, infrastructure, and markets. Iran provides oil. The Gulf states provide energy and investment opportunities. Israel offers advanced technology and commercial expertise. Beijing does not need these governments to agree with one another to recognize their economic value. This is the fundamental difference between a foreign policy that prioritizes economic interests and one that attempts to dictate international trade through political pressure.

We are watching the global economy reorganize as governments increasingly use trade, banking, and sanctions as weapons. China calling Israel a friend while maintaining its relationship with Iran is hardly a contradiction. It is a recognition that national interests extend beyond political alliances. China does not need to defeat the West economically if Western governments continue undermining their own competitiveness. The movement of capital will ultimately determine which economies benefit from this realignment, regardless of what politicians declare at their next summit.

The arrogance of those in Washington who think just because the US may have the largest military arsenal that they can dictate to the world and kill whomever disagrees with them, should remember that what goes around comes around. They sanctioned the killing of the Ayatollah. They think they are untouchable. They are starting to realize that it is not just Iran, they are afraid of a major riot in Washington that could hunt down the Republicans like January 6th, but the LEFT is far more violent.

Here is the riot, which they were calling a revolution (insurrection), and this was the LEFT all dressed in black torching Washington DC because of Trump. They were attacking people, and stores, looting, and setting the city on fire. This major riot occurred in Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2017, the day of Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration. During the protests, some demonstrators clashed with police, smashed shop windows, and set vehicles on fire, resulting in over 200 arrests. They are expecting this may unfold again in DC targeting Republicans in office.

Based on information released by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), they most frequently cited specific figure in their tactic of assassination Iranian military leaders is approximately 40 senior military commanders killed in the initial airstrike. However, Netanyahu has taken pride in claiming that the cumulative total of senior Iranian officials killed in subsequent operations exceeds 250.

Harry Patch (1898-2009), was the last surviving veteran from World War I. When he was 111 years old, had the best suggestion for war.

” I felt then, as I feel now, that the politicians who took us to war should have been given the guns and told to settle their differences themselves, instead of organizing nothing better than legalized mass murder.”

Perhaps this is the way to avoid major war. These people should just assassinate each other and leave the people alone. That seems to be Netanyahu’s preferred tactic but he assumes that is a one way street.

California voters have rejected the proposed 5% billionaire wealth tax, and perhaps the political establishment is finally beginning to understand that capital does not remain where it is being hunted. Proposition 40 was defeated by approximately 52.8% to 47.2%, despite promises that the government could raise $100 billion simply by taking a portion of the wealth accumulated by its richest residents. I have warned repeatedly that California is driving away the very people and businesses responsible for generating its tax revenue. The politicians look at someone’s net worth and imagine it is a pile of cash sitting in a bank account waiting to be seized. They have no comprehension of how wealth is created, how businesses are financed, or why investors relocate when governments threaten their assets.

The proposal, backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, would have imposed a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California residents holding more than $1 billion in assets. The money was supposed to offset reductions in federal healthcare funding, with additional allocations for education and food assistance. Bernie Sanders campaigned in support of the measure, arguing that California’s wealthiest residents should contribute more to public services. Yet even Governor Gavin Newsom opposed the proposal, warning that it could accelerate the departure of wealthy taxpayers and undermine the state’s finances. Imagine that. California has reached the point where even Newsom recognizes that there are consequences to threatening the state’s remaining capital base.

I wrote back in January that the mere proposal of this tax was enough to send enormous sums of wealth looking for a new home. Google co-founder Larry Page moved his family office from California to Delaware and began acquiring property in Florida. Peter Thiel expanded his presence in Miami, while David Sacks established an office in Austin. Larry Ellison had already shifted his principal residence to Hawaii. These individuals have the resources to relocate their investments and personal affairs wherever the tax environment is more favorable. Venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya estimated that California risked losing access to approximately $1 trillion in billionaire wealth. That was an estimate of wealth potentially leaving the state’s tax base, not a verified accounting of cash transferred out of California. Nevertheless, the warning was obvious long before voters went to the polls.

The socialists cannot grasp that a billionaire’s wealth is generally tied up in ownership interests, businesses, and investments. A founder holding $10 billion in company shares does not necessarily have $500 million in cash available to satisfy a 5% wealth tax. That person may have to sell shares, borrow against assets, or liquidate investments to pay the government. Politicians see a number on paper and immediately calculate how much of it they can spend. They never consider what happens when the owner decides to leave. According to CalMatters, wealthy opponents contributed approximately $378 million to defeat the measure, while supporters raised roughly $33.5 million. Google co-founder Sergey Brin alone contributed about $102 million to an opposition committee.

California has become dangerously dependent upon high-income earners and volatile capital gains. When markets rise, tax revenues surge, and politicians expand permanent spending programs as though those receipts will continue forever. When markets decline or wealthy taxpayers relocate, revenues collapse while the obligations remain. The state already imposes a top marginal income tax rate of 13.3%. Capital considers those differences when deciding where to invest, expand businesses, and establish residency. California may have extraordinary technology companies and universities, but those advantages do not make it immune to competition.

Governments never want to admit that they have promised more than the economy can sustain. They identify a politically convenient target and convince voters that confiscating more of someone else’s wealth will solve the problem. The wealthy become the first target because politicians assume the public will not object. Once that source proves insufficient, they must either reduce spending, borrow more, or expand taxation to other groups. California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office has repeatedly warned about structural budget problems, yet the political debate remains focused on finding another pool of money. A one-time wealth tax is particularly questionable when used to finance recurring expenditures. Once the proposed $100 billion is spent, the healthcare and education obligations remain. What happens then?

The economic consequences of capital flight extend far beyond the income taxes paid by wealthy residents. Businesses provide employment, purchase services, finance commercial property, and generate economic activity that produces additional tax revenue. When founders and investors relocate, not every employee or company immediately follows them. But decisions about where to establish new offices, invest future capital, and expand operations gradually shift elsewhere. That is how an economic center loses its competitive advantage. The damage may unfold over years, allowing politicians to deny responsibility until the decline becomes impossible to ignore.

What is particularly revealing is that the billionaire tax divided California’s own political establishment. Newsom opposed it, as did Planned Parenthood of California and the California Teachers Association. Their concerns included the potential loss of wealthy taxpayers and uncertainty surrounding the distribution of revenue. Meanwhile, supporters argued that the money was necessary to protect healthcare services and accused wealthy opponents of using their financial power to influence the election. California needs revenue to support its commitments, but increasing the tax burden on a small, highly mobile group may undermine the very tax base upon which those commitments depend.

California has created a dangerous dependence upon a relatively small group of taxpayers while encouraging political campaigns that portray those same taxpayers as an unlimited source of revenue. The government cannot assume that the people financing its spending commitments will remain indefinitely regardless of the tax burden. Capital has no loyalty to a particular state merely because a business was founded there. It moves in search of opportunity, security, and a reasonable expectation that the returns on investment will not be arbitrarily confiscated.

A new study from Pennsylvania State University has confirmed what millions of Americans have been experiencing since the COVID lockdowns. Rising food prices are forcing households to sacrifice their financial security, physical health, and mental well-being simply to put food on the table. Researchers found that grocery inflation is associated with greater food insecurity, anxiety, and increasingly desperate financial decisions. This is the real cost of inflation that Washington conveniently ignores when politicians celebrate a slight decline in the monthly inflation rate. Prices have not returned to their previous levels. The American people are still paying for the destruction of their purchasing power that began years ago.

Grocery prices increased by more than 20% between 2020 and 2024 alone, according to the USDA figures cited by Penn State. That increase has become embedded in the cost of living. Penn State researchers Yizao Liu and Yuxiang Zhang examined nationally representative data from the US Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey to understand how Americans respond when food becomes increasingly expensive. Some 44% of households made relatively few changes to their shopping habits, while another 28% began switching to generic brands, shopping at discount stores, and reducing restaurant spending.

The remaining 28% were making far more serious sacrifices. About 20% of households were classified as comprehensive adjusters, meaning they reduced expenditures across their budgets, postponed major purchases, and sometimes delayed medical treatment to afford groceries. Another 8% were identified as resource-strained sacrificers whose households took on additional jobs, borrowed money, reduced retirement contributions, drew down savings, and cut back on heating or electricity. More than one-quarter of households in the study were resorting to substantial financial adjustments to cope with the rising cost of food.

The researchers found that these coping mechanisms did not necessarily protect households from hardship. In fact, those making the most extensive adjustments remained highly vulnerable to food insufficiency and anxiety. Liu explained that some of the most financially strained households showed smaller increases in reported anxiety because they may have already been experiencing severe hardship before prices rose further.

If food prices rise 20% and inflation subsequently slows to 2%, the original increase remains. Prices continue rising, merely at a slower pace. Politicians can claim victory over inflation while families are still unable to afford what they purchased several years earlier.

The damage extends throughout the economy. When households devote a greater percentage of their income to food, housing, insurance, and utilities, they have less disposable income available for discretionary purchases. Restaurants, retailers, entertainment businesses, and other consumer-dependent industries eventually feel the pressure. Families that previously saved or invested are forced to redirect those funds toward immediate consumption. Others increasingly rely upon credit, which transfers today’s financial problems into the future through interest payments.

There is also a direct connection between food inflation and government policy. The COVID lockdowns disrupted production and transportation, while enormous fiscal stimulus and monetary expansion contributed to broader inflationary pressures. Energy costs, fertilizer prices, labor expenses, transportation, and supply-chain disruptions subsequently added pressure throughout the food system. Farmers must pay for fuel, machinery, fertilizer, insurance, and financing before their products ever reach a grocery store. Food prices reflect the cumulative costs of production and distribution, not simply decisions made by supermarkets.

The Penn State study examines the behavior behind the economic statistics. The researchers did not merely observe that groceries became more expensive. They documented how households reorganized their lives in response. Some traded down to cheaper products. Others postponed medical treatment or reduced retirement savings. The most financially strained households took on additional work and borrowed money while still experiencing food hardship. The study establishes associations rather than proving that higher grocery prices alone caused every reported mental health problem, but the economic pressures it documents are unmistakable.

The war has not even ended, and Zelensky is already demanding that Western taxpayers finance an 800,000-man Ukrainian army for another TEN YEARS! After billions upon billions have been poured into Ukraine, destroying the finances of European governments while their own citizens struggle with rising taxes and declining living standards, Kyiv is now discussing how to make this arrangement last another decade. This is absolutely astonishing. We have governments borrowing money they do not have to finance a war they have been unable to bring to an end, and now they are being asked to maintain one of the largest standing armies in the world long after the fighting stops.

According to a senior Ukrainian official cited by AFP, Kyiv presented the proposal during negotiations with Russia and the United States in Abu Dhabi. Zelensky had already declared in October that he wanted to maintain 800,000 troops if Western governments provided the funding. He has also insisted that the size of Ukraine’s military is not negotiable with Moscow. Ukraine argues that this enormous force is necessary to deter another Russian invasion. Ukraine cannot simply dictate the size of its military and then expect foreign taxpayers to provide a blank check to maintain it. National defense is one of the most expensive responsibilities of any sovereign government. If Kyiv intends to preserve a wartime military establishment indefinitely, it must explain how that obligation can be supported by an economy that has been devastated by years of conflict.

Ukraine already maintains an estimated 880,000 to 900,000 active military personnel, compared with approximately 200,000 before the Russian invasion in 2022. Zelensky is proposing to retain almost the entire wartime force. Germany has roughly 180,000 active personnel, Britain around 147,000, France approximately 200,000, and Poland around 200,000. Ukraine’s proposed army would exceed the active forces of Germany, Britain, and France combined. Pakistan maintains approximately 660,000 active personnel, while South Korea has around 450,000. Only a handful of countries maintain larger forces, including China, India, Russia, and the United States. Those countries finance their militaries primarily through their own national budgets. Zelensky wants Ukraine to maintain a military comparable to the world’s largest powers while sending the bill to foreign governments. The sheer audacity of this proposal should be enough to force a serious debate over what the West is actually committing itself to.

Let us put some numbers on the table because politicians seem to believe money grows on trees. At an illustrative annual cost of $30,000 per soldier, including pay, benefits, equipment, training, and support, an army of 800,000 would require $24 billion every year. That is $240 billion over ten years. At $50,000 per soldier, the figure rises to $40 billion annually, or $400 billion over the decade. These are illustrative calculations rather than official budget estimates. They also exclude major weapons purchases, reconstruction of military infrastructure, and replacement of equipment destroyed during the war. We haven’t even factored in benefits, retirement, disability payments, or the endless other costs associated with merely the soldiers themselves.

What makes this even more absurd is that the size of Ukraine’s military remains one of the central obstacles to peace. During the Istanbul negotiations in 2022, Russia demanded that Ukraine limit its armed forces to 85,000 personnel. Kyiv proposed 250,000. Moscow also sought restrictions of 342 tanks, 519 artillery systems, and missiles with a maximum range of 40 kilometers. Ukraine proposed 800 tanks and missiles with a range of 280 kilometers. Now Zelensky wants 800,000 soldiers, more than NINE TIMES the number Russia originally demanded. Moscow renewed its demands for military restrictions during negotiations in Turkey in June 2025, along with Ukrainian neutrality and withdrawal from territories Russia claims. Zelensky has rejected those conditions. These are not minor differences that can be resolved by issuing another press release about constructive negotiations. They go directly to the security concerns that have driven this conflict.

Russia wants assurances that Ukraine will not become a heavily armed Western military outpost on its border. Ukraine wants guarantees that Russia cannot invade again. The negotiators are attempting to reconcile fundamentally opposing objectives while politicians continue making promises that may be impossible to fulfill. A peace settlement must address the security concerns of both sides if it is to have any prospect of lasting. Simply declaring that the West will finance an enormous Ukrainian military for another decade does not resolve the underlying confrontation.

The economic consequences for Ukraine itself are being almost entirely ignored. The country has lost an enormous portion of its productive workforce through death, displacement, and emigration. Its infrastructure has been damaged, industries disrupted, and government finances rendered dependent upon foreign assistance. Ukraine desperately needs investment, reconstruction, and workers returning to productive employment. Yet Zelensky proposes keeping 800,000 people in uniform after the war. Who is supposed to rebuild the economy? Who will restore the factories, repair infrastructure, and generate the tax revenue necessary to sustain the country? A nation cannot rebuild its productive capacity if an extraordinary share of its available workforce remains tied to a military establishment that the domestic economy cannot afford.

The Abu Dhabi negotiations are also considering security guarantees modeled on NATO’s Articles 4 and 5. Article 4 provides for consultations when an ally’s security is threatened, while Article 5 establishes the principle of collective defense following an armed attack. According to reports, American representatives have asked Moscow to consider guarantees resembling those provisions without necessarily admitting Ukraine into NATO. Zelensky wants binding commitments approved by Congress so that future American administrations cannot simply abandon them. Think about what is being proposed. Western governments would not merely finance Ukraine’s military for another decade. They could also undertake security obligations that might require direct military assistance if Russia attacks again.

Jared Kushner, participating in the negotiations as Trump’s special envoy, has spoken about creating a new security structure capable of preserving peace for decades. Zelensky described the opening discussions as constructive, while American officials suggested that differences between the parties had narrowed. Yet no agreement has been announced on territory, military restrictions, or the precise nature of Western guarantees. The central disagreements remain unresolved.

I have warned repeatedly that the sovereign debt crisis would eventually collide with the geopolitical ambitions of governments. This is precisely the problem. Politicians make promises extending ten, twenty, or thirty years into the future, knowing perfectly well that they will not personally be responsible for financing them. They spend money that has not yet been collected from taxpayers and commit future generations to obligations they never approved. Europe is already confronting the consequences of excessive borrowing, weak growth, and expensive energy policies. Adding another decade of military financing without a credible funding mechanism will only compound those pressures.

Who will audit the money? Will Western taxpayers finance salaries, pensions, ammunition, housing, equipment, and military infrastructure? Will payments continue regardless of Ukraine’s economic performance or the condition of its public finances? What happens when a future government in Germany, France, Britain, or the United States refuses to provide its share? These questions are fundamental to the credibility of any agreement. A ten-year commitment that depends upon annual appropriations from multiple governments is vulnerable to elections, recessions, and sovereign debt pressures. Promises made during negotiations cannot substitute for a sustainable financial arrangement.

The war has already inflicted catastrophic damage upon Ukraine and imposed enormous costs upon the countries supporting it. A lasting settlement should create the conditions for rebuilding the economy and reducing the danger of another conflict. Instead, the negotiations now include a proposal to preserve one of the world’s largest military establishments while transferring much of its cost to foreign governments for another decade. That may be Kyiv’s preferred arrangement, but the taxpayers being asked to finance it deserve a full accounting of the cost and consequences. Politicians can promise whatever they please. The debt remains long after they leave office, and the people who must repay it are rarely the ones sitting at the negotiating table.