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 latest report underscores growing concern within NATO itself over whether weapons intended for Ukraine are actually reaching their destination, as Finland has now moved to audit deliveries amid uncertainty. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that Washington “is not redirecting NATO-purchased weapons for Ukraine to the Middle East,” but notably “stopped short of ruling out the possibility.” At the same time, Donald Trump offered a broader and more revealing explanation, saying the United States is “constantly moving weapons between different parts of the world.”

The question of why NATO is fully committed to Ukraine yet far more restrained when it comes to Iran is a window into how modern geopolitics actually functions beneath the surface. What you are witnessing is not about morality, democracy, or even alliances in the traditional sense. It is about capital flows, regional control, and the strategic priorities of those directing policy behind the curtain.

From everything I have written over the years, the war in Ukraine has always been about Europe, not Russia. The objective has been to isolate Russia economically while simultaneously forcing Europe into dependency. By cutting off Russian energy and pushing sanctions, the EU effectively destroyed its own industrial base. Capital began to flee Europe and flow into the United States. That was the real outcome. The war became a mechanism to redirect capital flows, and that is why NATO is “all in.” Ukraine is the lever being used to reshape Europe.

Iran is a completely different equation. A direct, unified NATO engagement against Iran would risk destabilizing the entire Middle East in a way that cannot be contained. You are dealing with the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of global oil flows. Any escalation there immediately impacts energy prices worldwide and risks triggering a broader regional war involving multiple actors. This is not Ukraine, where the conflict can be geographically contained. This is a choke point for the global economy.

Historically, NATO has always been strongest when operating within a clearly defined regional framework tied to Europe. Ukraine fits that model. Iran does not. Iran sits at the crossroads of competing interests involving not just the West, but also China, Russia, and regional powers. A unified NATO front against Iran would risk fracturing the alliance itself, particularly as Europe is already under severe economic strain. They simply do not have the capacity to sustain another major conflict.

There is also the issue of public tolerance. Europe can justify its involvement in Ukraine under the narrative of defending its borders and countering Russia. That argument resonates politically within NATO countries. Iran does not present the same narrative framework. A direct war with Iran would be far more difficult to sell domestically, especially given the economic consequences that would follow.

But the real underlying factor, as I have consistently explained, is confidence. The global system is being held together by confidence in governments, currencies, and institutions. Ukraine has been used as a controlled conflict to manage that system, to justify spending, to redirect capital, and to consolidate political power. Iran represents an uncontrolled variable.

Finnish Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen reinforced Europe’s role in undying support for Ukraine. “What has been promised to Ukraine must reach Ukraine,” Häkkänen stated. “We constantly assess how funds are being spent, and we believe the mechanism works. Of course, if problems arise, we will have to review this.”

Despite decades of the United States funding and effectively underwriting NATO’s military power, Europe has largely refused to join direct offensive operations against Iran. President Trump openly criticized NATO allies for failing what he called a “loyalty test,” pointing out that after trillions spent defending Europe, the alliance was “not there” when the United States needed support in the Middle East. The response from Europe has shown that NATO is not united.

This is where the future of NATO itself comes into question. If the United States continues to shoulder the financial burden while Europe selectively participates only when it serves its own interests, then the entire premise of the alliance begins to break down. Trump has already made it clear that alliances must provide tangible benefits, not just political symbolism. If Washington concludes that NATO is no longer a mutual defense pact but a one-sided obligation, then the pressure to reassess or even exit will intensify. Alliances do not collapse overnight, they erode when confidence disappears and when one side no longer sees value in maintaining the relationship. Should that realization take hold in the United States, the possibility of stepping back from NATO is no longer unthinkable.

Virginia is allowing 22-year-old grown men, illegal migrants who don’t speak English, to enroll in public high school with your 14- and 15-year-old daughters. Mind you, American kids get booted at 20.

Illegals can stay until 22 free of charge, thanks to Virginia Code §… pic.twitter.com/NDE1zYUBD8

— Sadie (@Sadie_NC) March 25, 2026

Reports emerging out of Virginia confirm that migrants, including those in the country illegally, are being allowed to remain in high schools up to the age of 22, placing adult individuals into classrooms with minors. What is being justified under the banner of “education access” has effectively created a loophole where grown adults can legally sit alongside teenage students. Yet another example of Democrats prioritizing open borders above all else.

What could go wrong? In Fairfax County, a 19-year-old migrant has been accused of sexually assaulting multiple female classmates. These young girls were assaulted in the confines of their school, a place that should be a safe haven. Our children are no longer protected by the law. In fact, this new legislation outright puts children in danger and denies students the ability to learn in a safe environment. Even unvetted migrants who do not have proper documentation are permitted to attend high school in Virginia so long as they claim to be under 22. Any grown, able-bodied, working-age man can now collect government benefits under the guise of desiring a high school diploma.

Virginia lawmakers are actively moving to codify policies that ensure access to public education regardless of immigration status. The state receives funding for ESL programs, and open border policies are emboldened. Despite the molestation charges and obvious risks, lawmakers in Virginia are not concerned about the safety of children.

Parents cannot pick up their children from school without presenting proper ID and signing waivers. They cannot even walk inside the school without going directly to the main office where they are vetted. Now, schools are being asked to simply accept stated ages and backgrounds at face value while permitting ANY semi-youthful presenting individual to attend classes. You are effectively placing unverified adults into daily contact with minors and hoping nothing goes wrong. These migrant students will likely be older than the teachers in many classrooms. No serious institution would operate this way, yet this is now being normalized by the far-left who are using children as political social experiments.

Schools are supposed to be controlled environments where minors learn among peers. Now, children will be placed in proximity to adults whose backgrounds, histories, and intentions are completely unknown. No parent sends their child to school expecting that the system has quietly redefined who belongs in that environment. The Democrats are effectively weaponizing public schools, endangering children, and forcing taxpayers to foot the bill. What horrors must occur before this law is repealed?

Parents send their children to school under the assumption that it is a controlled, safe environment. You cannot maintain a functioning society if people no longer trust its institutions to provide basic safety.

What Iran is doing right now is something we have seen repeatedly throughout history whenever a currency begins to die. Governments start issuing larger and larger banknotes because the existing denominations no longer function in daily life. This took place in the Weimar Republic hyperinflation, where trillion-mark notes were printed, and again in Zimbabwe hyperinflation, where 100 trillion dollar notes became commonplace. The pattern is always the same. The currency loses purchasing power, prices rise uncontrollably, and instead of fixing the underlying problem, governments simply add more zeros. Iran introducing a 10 million rial note is the same historical signal that the currency is worthless.

The introduction of a 10 million rial banknote, now the highest denomination in the country’s history, is being presented as a practical measure to “facilitate transactions.” In reality, it is an admission that the currency itself has failed. When a nation must print larger and larger notes just to keep commerce functioning, that is not stability, it is a monetary breakdown.

The new 10 million rial note is reportedly worth roughly $7 USD at current exchange rates. A “million” denomination has become meaningless. People no longer think in terms of value but in terms of survival. The numbers grow larger, but purchasing power collapses.

The reality on the ground confirms this collapse in confidence. The Iranian rial is now trading around 1.4 to 1.6 million per US dollar on the open market, levels that reflect a dramatic erosion in trust. At the time of the 1979 revolution, the exchange rate was roughly 70 rials per dollar, meaning the currency has lost tens of thousands of times its value over time. Even in the past year alone, the decline has accelerated, showing that this is not a slow deterioration but a rapid phase of collapse.

Official figures place inflation near 48–50%, with food prices rising even faster. This is where the destruction becomes visible to the average person. Prices rise faster than wages, savings are wiped out, and the middle class disappears. When you combine a collapsing currency with inflation approaching 50%, what you are really seeing is purchasing power being annihilated. People are not becoming poorer because they earn less. They are becoming poorer because their money no longer holds value.

What is even more telling is the government’s response. Before introducing the 10 million note, they rolled out a 5 million rial note worth only a few dollars. First, the denominations increase incrementally, then they accelerate as confidence disappears. These are all clear signs of a failed currency.

There have long been reports of people rushing to withdraw cash, fearing further currency weakness and potential restrictions. The public knows their currency is worthless. People have withdrawn whatever they could, spent it quickly, or converted it into hard assets or foreign currency.

The underlying cause here is not mysterious. Iran has been financing deficits through money creation for years while facing sanctions and internal corruption. This combination destroys confidence in both the government and the currency. Printing money does not create wealth. It simply dilutes what already exists.

When governments lose control of their finances, they always turn to the printing press. But printing money does not solve the problem. The introduction of a 10 million rial note is not a solution. It is a symptom. Iran is now in a phase where the currency is no longer trusted, and  the entire economic system is at risk.

QUESTION: How is it possible that Trump was not briefed on the fact that Iran would attack the Gulf States when you pointed out Iran is Shia and the others are Sunni, and shutting down the Strait of Hormuz would not bring down the West without attacking the production as you yourself said they would do? Even Socrates warned of a Double Directional Change in Saudi Arabia in March. Are you sources far better than the CIA? Why do they not use you?

Sam

ANSWER: I cannot image that the CIA et al would not have anticipated that. Saudi Arabia has been the enemy of Iran, which was why they were cutting deals with Israel and UAE even held military exercises with Israel. You have to be completely ignorant of the Middle East not to have known this outcome. Since one tanker and that is just a rounding error. Attack the refineries and not you bring the world to its knees.

I knew that the Neocons were using Netanyahu to manipulate Trump for he assumed he was responding to a head of state when in fact he grew up in Philadelphia and hung out with the Neocons. I know of a private phone call in which Netanyahu manipulated Trump, stressing that he could “make history” by toppling the Ayatollah regime and taking revenge for Iranian efforts to assassinate him, which was central in Trump’s decision to strike when he did.

It appears that Trump was not fully briefed because the Neocons wanted this war. Yet, the intelligence community is now covering their ass claiming Trump was brief on the fact that Tehran would likely seek to close the economically vital Strait of Hormuz. That I can confirm. As Reuters reported that pre-war intelligence assessments did not say that Iran’s response was “a guarantee, but ‌it certainly was on the list of potential outcomes.” This is clearly a cover-your-ass position.

As far as claiming that the war was over “in the first hour” was a public declaration he made himself, not a claim derived from an official intelligence or military briefing. He appears to have come to that conclusion from video clips of blowing up things in Iran.

The computer has shown this war in everything from interest rates, holding of US debt, to all of the arrays on the Gulf States aside from the oil markets, commodities, and the war cycle. Our War Index targeted March last November with rising volatility from January into April ’26 where we do have Panic Cycles in many markets. The second array is the current one showing a Directional Change in March ’26 escalating into April with a Panic Cycle in July. As far as the CIA sources, they are informants. My are economic.

On March 31, Martin Armstrong will be speaking live in Vancouver with Michael Campbell, addressing what lies ahead in 2026, 2027, and beyond. This is based on the Economic Confidence Model, the same model that has tracked major turning points in markets, geopolitics, and global trends decades in advance. We are entering one of the most critical periods in modern history, and the window to prepare is narrowing.

In-person tickets are sold out, but you still have the opportunity to watch the event via the available virtual ticket, which gives you access to the full event without needing to be in the room.

We are looking at a convergence of events, rising geopolitical tensions into 2027, sovereign debt stress, and a restructuring of the global economy. Capital flows are already shifting. Governments are tightening control. The risks ahead are not isolated. They are connected, and they are unfolding precisely on target with the cycles.

The room in Vancouver may be full, but the opportunity to hear this live is not gone. You can still attend virtually and gain the same insights into what is coming next.

Secure your virtual ticket here:
https://mikesmoneytalks.ca/moneytalks-store/

Select: “An Evening with Martin Armstrong”

The event is March 31st. What we are heading into will not wait.

The U.S. Army has raised the maximum enlistment age to 42 and relaxed drug restrictions. They present this as modernization, adapting to changing times, expanding opportunity. That is how it is always sold. But this is a warning sign. Every time governments prepare for prolonged conflict, they begin expanding the pool of who they are willing to accept into the military.

The Army has now increased the enlistment age from 35 to 42 and eliminated the need for waivers for certain drug offenses, particularly marijuana. This is being justified as aligning with other branches and recognizing changing laws. But let’s be clear. This is about numbers and manpower. You do not suddenly expand eligibility like this unless you are preparing for something larger than peacetime operations.

We have seen this before. The last time the Army raised the enlistment age to 42 was during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in 2006, when recruitment was falling short and the demand for troops was rising. They needed bodies. They lowered standards, increased waivers, and expanded eligibility because the war required it. And here we are again, repeating the same pattern almost verbatim.

The recruitment crisis has been building for years. In 2022, the Army missed its recruitment targets by roughly 25%, and even when goals were later met, it was achieved by lowering standards and expanding eligibility programs. The reality is that only about 1 in 4 young Americans even qualify for military service due to physical, mental, or legal issues. So they start removing barriers that once existed.

They are now even easing restrictions on drug-related offenses. Previously, even a single marijuana conviction required a waiver, waiting period, and review. That has now been scrapped. Again, this is not about social policy. This is about expanding the recruitment pool. When the military begins issuing more waivers, including criminal waivers, it is a direct response to strain. During the Iraq War, the number of recruits with criminal records surged, raising serious concerns about readiness and discipline. That was not because standards improved. It was because standards were relaxed.

Now connect the dots. We have rising geopolitical tensions, talk of boots on the ground in the Middle East, and at the exact same time the military expands eligibility, raises age limits, and lowers barriers to entry. This is preparation. Governments never come out and say they are gearing up for a prolonged conflict. They adjust policy quietly and only later does the full picture become clear.

Whenever the United States entered major conflicts, recruitment standards and age ranges shifted. During World Wars I and II, the government expanded eligibility, adjusted age brackets, and even moved to compulsory systems when voluntary enlistment could not meet demand. The pattern is always the same. First comes policy change. Then comes escalation.