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.

I have not been able to CONFIRM that there was any successfully hit the Dimona nuclear plant, but there have been threats and concerns about potential attacks on it. The situation remains tense, with ongoing military operations and rhetoric between Iran and Israel. The video that was claiming it was destroy was dated March 1st and that was fake news from what I have been able to put together so far.

It is being reported that Trump has delivered an ultimatum to the Gulf States that “If you want the war to continue – 5 trillion dollars. If you want it to end – 2.5 trillion dollars.” Omani journalist and international relations researcher Salem Al-Jahuri, on BBC Arabic, confirms reports of US pressure on the Gulf Cooperation Council states to make them pay, regardless of the circumstances. According to the leaks to which Al-Jahuri refers, Trump demands from Middle Eastern states either 5 trillion dollars to continue the war, or 2.5 trillion dollars as a payment for its termination, presenting this as a payment for “what has been achieved.”

I am still trying to verify this through independent sources.

What the US has lost in this war is not measured in casualties or the number of placed blown up. The USA has lost the respect they once had in the Middle East. This is a war started by Netanyahu getting Trump to come in to fund his war against Iran and if you recall the ’70s, the whole OPEC oil crisis back then was because the USA was supporting israel against the Arabs. Claiming Iran has nukes and this is a preemptive strike still makes the USA and Israel the aggressors. This has unleashed a Middle East conflict that is not confined to Iran and now the USA wants the Gulf States to pay for the war against Iran?

Beware the next two weeks. Netanyahu wants to escalate dramatically knowing that Trump does not have the support of the American people in an election year no less. Historically, when the president lacks the support of the people during a midterm election, his party typically loses. This much the people on the Hill know for they look at the stats. We will do a report on the Midterms.

Gold has declined as some Gulf States have been selling covertly as cash is king. The safe haven has again been the dollar. But while everyone is watching gold, stocks, and inflation, they are not paying attention to the yield curve which is screaming very loudly but nobody is listening.

Iran threatened to strike “Israel’s” Dimona nuclear reactor, describing it as a “Samson Option” to bring down the temple on its enemies if the United States carries out a plan for a ground invasion using the Kurdish card. There has been a line nobody was supposed to cross. Israel attacked the South Pars and that unleashed Iran attacking the Gulf States but seeking to cause serious damage rather than just a fire for TV. This is why Iran has not bombed the reactor so far, even though “Israel” has previously targeted Iranian nuclear sites. This is now on the table thanks to Netanyahu.

This time, Iran faces what it considers an existential threat from Netanyahu trying to keep assassinating the leadership in Iran as if that will bring down the government. Iran knows destroying the Dimona card may send a nuclear cloud that can even drift to Egypt in hours. This choice reflects the concept of “Samson,” which increases expectations that it might be used despite the enormous risks and regional and international concerns.

The Dimona reactor represents a symbol of “Israel’s” nuclear program. Targeting it would certainly carry dramatic consequences including the danger of a regional-scale radioactive disaster. Israeli may then respond with nuclear weapons, according to the doctrine known as the “Samson Option.”

Obviously, such an attack would lead to military escalation that cannot be contained. Iran knows that, which explains their hesitation up to now. But Netanyahu is trying to annihalate the Iranian government. If they are in such a danger, then there are no limits. This is all based on Netanyahu’s insane idea that just killing the Ayatollah would end the regime and spark an uprising. None of that has happened.

If such an otion is taken, it does not appear to be before June at the earliest. It still appears that this will continue in the Middle East until 2028.

The advantage of having offices around the world is that this also provides us with boots on the ground for first-hand accounts. We are getting from our Thailand office that there is “no gasoline here. Up North lineups for diesel. I tried to fill up a bike, no gasoline available. I tried several other stations, but all are out.” As I reported, Asia is going to be hard hit with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. There was no imminent threat from Iran. This has been a 40-year vendetta by Netanyahu. which he did admit in a national TV address, but asserted it was fake news that he dragged Trump into this war.

It may sound strange, but up until March 18th, 2026, this war has been more bravado and theatre than an actual all-out war. There has been a deliberate attempt NOT to destroy the energy infrastructure of Iran in hopes of leaving the energy sector intact to fund the new government after the planned regime change. But on the 18th, Netanyahu does not give a shit about the world or even Trump. He targeted Iran’s South Pars, which is the biggest gas field in the world with and estimated 51 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. Netanyahu did that because he wanted to turn the lights out in Iran since that is the source of all energy for the government and the people.

Iran retaliated with it most severe attacks yet. It targeted Qatar but this time doing damage, not superficial fires for show. Trump was forced to back off and bluntly state that there would be no more attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure. Netanyahu does not really care, but Trump read him the riot act and he agreed to stop attacking South Pars. The only way to stop this war and start some sort of de-escalation process requires Netanyahu to surrender his dream of total antihalation of Iran. The other Gulf States would have to forego retaliation, and Trump will have to concede he cannot accomplish regime change. Do not hold your breath. Further escalation will end up DESTROYING energy infrastructure and that may be in the cards given that the computer implies this may get worse starting this summer into 2028.

Just a day before the first strikes, Gallup polling had shown Americans’ view of Israel hitting a new historic low because of Netanyahu’s attack on Gaza. Americans for the first time didn’t sympathize more with Israelis than Palestinians. As the computer warned, cyclically we were in an uptrend on antisemitism and this war on Iran is not going to play well for Israel no matter what Netanyahu says on TV. Sinking a tanker is not an energy crisis. It’s the equivalent of a rounding error. Taking out the production infrastructure can lead to serious damage that could take more than one-year to fix.

The claims that the US and Israel have destroyed Iran’s missiles is simply not true. Iran has been planning for this war for at least a decade. All they have been able to do is bomb the tunnel entrances, which Iran can quickly dig out. They have NOT destroyed their missile stockpiles. They have bombed about 75% of the tunnel entrances and Iran has dozens of these underground facilities.

The attacks prior to March 18th and Israel’s unilateral attack on Gulf States was for show – not devastating. Iran then attacked the Gulf States and this was not for TV. Then to the shock of everyone, Iran fired two intermediate-range ballistic missiles toward Diego Garcia, a key U.S.-U.K. military base in the Indian Ocean. That was 2500 miles. Neither missile struck the base. Nevertheless, this confirms that Iran can target beyond the Middle East. It is believed that one missile failed in flight, but the other was intercepted by a US warship that launched an SM-3 interceptor. This base is a strategic launch point for U.S. bombers, nuclear submarines and other strategic assets.

President Trump who has perhaps always been able to read the mood in a room is finding himself on the outside looking in. The majority of Americans think President Donald Trump will order U.S. soldiers to Iran in a large-scale ground war, and less than 10% support that possibility, according to a new poll from Reuters/Ipsos. This would probably also justify our computer warning about rising civil unrest in conjunction with war. The politics is forcing him to claim victory and back down. This is one time with our model calling for a temporary March high with a two to three month correction.

The ONLY way to secured the Strait of Hormuz is to occupy it with boots on the ground. You will have to stage massive troops along the Strait for 50 miles on BOTH sides, plus you will have to penetrate inward 100 miles on each side. Then you will have to create a no-fly zone and that will have to be patrolled and monitored 100% of the time. As long as Iran has the ability to impede the oil traffic and production, they retain leverage that these so-called brilliant minds who never took into account this scenario because their assumed being the biggest military power secures victory. Neither the US nor Russia could totally win in Afghanistan. When religion is at the core, military logic vanishes.

This is the quagmire that Trump never expected because he trusted Netanyahu and has been forced to see the reality that he has been played and he has no choice but to back out of this mess. Netanyahu NEVER took into account that his assassinations would fail. Netanyahu believed that killing the Ayatollah would bring down the government instantly. Netanyahu suffers from a very well know syndrome. This is commonly referred to as the “Leader Removal Fallacy” or the “Benevolent Hegemon” misconception, which seem to be a delusional trait of all Neocons.

In political science, foreign policy analysis, and military history, it is more formally known as the “Fallacy of the Single Cause” or the “Regime Change Fallacy.” However, this specific scenario assumes that a foreign population is simply waiting to be “liberated” from a hated leader and will greet invaders with flowers. I have heard this constantly over the years even about invading Russia and the people will cheer and throw flowers at their feet. This is often labeled “Democratic Liberation Illusion” or the “Cakewalk Myth” we saw in both Afghanistan and Iraq. This seems to be a syndrome that they actually believe for want to see themselves as Superman saving the world and deserve medals and statutes to their memory.

The “Leader Removal Fallacy” is the closest academic concept to this problem. It is the assumption that a leader is the sole source of a country’s geopolitical behavior or internal strife, and that removing that individual will result in an immediate shift to peace, democracy, and gratitude toward the actor who removed them. This was Netanyahu’s policy of always assassinating leaders. It fails because it ignores structural realities: deep state institutions, nationalism, ethnic divisions, and the fact that the leader often reflects the grievances of a significant portion of the population, rather than creating them in a vacuum.

Then there is also the “Anthropomorphic Fallacy” where in international relations, this refers to the tendency to anthropomorphize a foreign nation, treating the leader as the country. A Neocon believes that if they “cut off the head” (the leader), the “body” (the nation) will die or surrender. In reality, nations are complex organisms. When a foreign power kills a leader, it often triggers a nationalistic rally-round-the-flag effect, where the population unites against the foreign invader, regardless of how they felt about the leader previously. There was no popular uprising in Iraq that they expected and again here in Iran, but they dismiss that saying they would be oppressed. That only confirms their idea of the Anthropomorphic Fallacy is completely delusional.

Next is the “Cakewalk” or “Mission Accomplished” Syndrome we heard with Iraq. This is the strategic overconfidence that regime change will be quick, easy, and welcomed. We heard that nonsense with Iraq. In the historical context, the phrase “cakewalk” was infamously used by Dick Cheney in 2003 regarding the Iraq War. The syndrome involves ignoring “post-conflict” planning because the assumption is that the population will spontaneously reorganize into a pro-American (or pro-intervener) democracy as soon as the dictator falls. That never happened.

Then comes the “Blowback” and the “Unintended Consequences” as we heard Tomy Blair apologize, yet these Neocons always make the same mistake. While not a named “syndrome” per se, intelligence agencies (like the CIA) use the term “blowback” to describe this exact phenomenon. The syndrome is the belief that the populace sees the intervening power as a “liberator.” The reality is usually blowback: the population views the intervening power as an “occupier,” leading to insurgency, guerrilla warfare, and long-term instability that is far worse than the original situation under the “evil” leader.

Then there is the risk of the “Socialist” or “Marxist” interpretation and exploitation of the invasion. In critical theory, this is described as “Imperial Arrogance” or “Vanguardism applied to foreign policy.” It is the belief that a foreign power knows what is best for a sovereign nation’s population better than they know themselves. I had long discussions and saw this Neocon arrogance first hand where Nikita Khrushchev said he would spread Communism to the world so they claimed that they would spread Democracy to the world. It never mattered what the people wanted; they would force their political system on the target nation. When the “liberation” does not occur, the intervener often blames the population for “false consciousness” (i.e., “they just don’t understand freedom yet”) rather than acknowledging that the population may have had legitimate grievances against the intervener.

Consequently, this delusional Neocon dream never happens. The reason this syndrome consistently fails (from Napoleon’s invasion of Spain to the US invasions of Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan) is due to three immutable factors:

• Nationalism: Foreign military intervention is the single strongest catalyst for nationalist sentiment. A population may despise their dictator, but they will often despise a foreign soldier occupying their capital even more.
• Security Dilemma: When a foreign power removes a leader, they become responsible for the security, economy, and infrastructure of that country. The “cheering” turns to resentment the first time the power grid fails or the occupier accidentally kills civilians.
• De-Baathification Analogy: Removing the leader often requires dismantling the entire state apparatus (military, bureaucracy) that kept the country stable. When the “evil” leader is gone, the state collapses into factional violence, which the intervening power is blamed for.

There is no single clinical term for this Neocon delusion, but in geopolitical analysis, it is most frequently called the “Regime Change Fallacy” or “Liberal Interventionism’s Fatal Assumption.”

The US has been unable to protect the Gulf States and the one closet to the USA, UAE, has been hit the hardest. This quagmire is far worse than anyone suspects. It is undermining the USA and depriving the Neocons of their dream of ruling the Middle East. With the new Middle East NATO between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey, this emerging security alignment is not fundamentally anti-American. Instead, it is more accurately understood as a strategic hedge driven by anxieties over the reliability of traditional U.S. security guarantees, rather than a desire to directly oppose the United States. The Neocons approach everything from a position of arrogance. They NEVER try to see things through the eyes of others. They will lose the Middle East and things are going to get much worse from the summer 2026 into 2028.

Qatar is the world’s 2nd largest LNG exporter (after Australia, 77 million tons/year). Qatar supplies 20-25% of Europe’s LNG imports and 40% of UK’s gas imports. It also supplies: Asia (China, Japan, South Korea, India).

Let me tell you what’s happening and why this is CATASTROPHICALLY WORSE than most people realize. Based on the geopolitical dynamics we’ve been tracking; Iran has struck Qatari gas production facilities cutting about 17% of Doha’s LNG capacity after Netanyahu’s March 18th attack on South Pars. European natural gas prices are at risk of rising 300-500% (from current levels), That is aside from whether shipment can navigate the Strait of Hormuz.

Qatar’s global gas significance being the world’s 2nd largest LNG exporter has the North Field, which is the world’s largest gas field, shared with Iran. Its production capacity is 6 billion cubic feet/day. LNG export terminals are Ras Laffan massive complex with 14 LNG trains.

The computer is not looking good for several years to come. The ECM was projecting a Depression for the EU into 2028. This appears to be another factor behind the proxy war with Russia combined with their highly Marxist policies of controlling the economy and even free speech.

We still see the risk of oil rising to $200-$240 level by 2028. Does Netanyahu come up with another conspiracy to reignite an all-out war? Trump may want to de-escalate, but there are now four parties with self-interests that do not coincide with the USA. The only way to get the nuclear material is boots on the ground. Trump does not have the support for that.

QUESTION: Marty, the word is you have been screaming on Capitol Hill and some are listening to your computer. You may be making some headway for Socrates’ forecasts going beyond just opinions. Do you think you have accomplished what you have set out to do? Trump is backing down.

WJ

ANSWER: Here is the Array we published last May. It showed a Panic Cycle in January and back-to-back directional changes in Jan/Feb 2026 with a target into March 2026. Here is the Array from last November. This also showed March as the target for a high. Trump should try to back off because this is so unpopular and the approval for boots on the ground is at best 10%.

I have been on the phone constantly. The computer has shown a March high and there should be a 2 to 3 month correction. But June is a Panic Cycle. There are three other parties here and nobody seems to really agree. The Gulf States that were attacked want to retaliate. This is killing Netanyahu to stand down. This has been his life’s dream. Then there is Iran, which saw the weak spot and to not just block the Strait of Hormuz, but once Israel attacked their energy field, that is when Iran unleashed attacks that this time intended to cause major damage that could put production out for even a year.

The attacks prior to March 18th and Israel’s unilateral attack on the gas field was for show – not devastating. Iran then attacked the Gulf States and this was not for TV. Then to the shock of everyone, Iran fired two intermediate-range ballistic missiles toward Diego Garcia, a key U.S.-U.K. military base in the Indian Ocean. That was 2500 miles. Neither missile struck the base. Nevertheless, this confirms that Iran can target beyond the Middle East. It is believed that one missile failed in flight, but the other was intercepted by a US warship that launched an SM-3 interceptor. This base is a strategic launch point for U.S. bombers, nuclear submarines and other strategic assets.

I believe that (1) Iran’s attack on the Gulf States and (2) this new ability to launch missiles outside of the Middle East is what forced Trump to realize what I have been warning, Iran would engage in economic warfare while the boasts of taking out their missiles was all bravado, with little substance. I will go into that tomorrow.

For now, we should see the pause getting hopes up, but the hatred still lingers.

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Will you do a comprehensive report on the Middle East. We are done with the academics and the others you just like to hear themselves talk with personal opinions. You are the only one with experience and models. It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide some guidance for the Middle East in general. We too had to get our staff out of Dubai.

Thank you so much for your remarkable guidance in these dark times.

WPT

ANSWER: Yes. I will do my best. It is just that we are getting so swamped from every continent. I really do not believe that these advisers to Trump ever understood the interconnections that stands behind everything in the world economy at this juncture. A vacation for me at this stage is 15 minutes. As you can see, the number of barrels of crude per ounce of gold bottomed in 2005. At the close of 2025, we elected yearly buy signals for the long-term. This is getting confusing for so many. Welcome to the new age of chaos where things are not what the seem.

Russia is now advising psychological counseling for women who do not intend to have children, which is precisely the type of response governments default to when they refuse to confront economic reality. They search for cultural or emotional explanations when the issue is economical.

Russia’s fertility rate has fallen to roughly 1.4 children per woman, well below the 2.1 replacement level, and total births have declined to near post-Soviet lows at just over 1.2 million annually. This decline has been persistent, not cyclical, and the population is aging rapidly as deaths continue to exceed births. At the same time, the war has removed a significant portion of young men from the population.

The same pattern is unfolding across all developed economies. Europe’s fertility rate is now near 1.3. Spain and Italy are closer to 1.1. Germany is around 1.4. France, once the exception, has fallen sharply and recently recorded more deaths than births for the first time in decades. Japan has been below replacement for years and continues to contract. Even countries that implemented aggressive family subsidies, such as Norway and Hungary, have failed to reverse the trend.

Globally, fertility has collapsed from more than 5 children per woman in the 1960s to just above two today, and the developed world is already well below replacement. The common explanation offered by governments is psychological or social. They speak of changing values, delayed adulthood, or lifestyle preferences. That explanation collapses under scrutiny because it ignores the economic structure that determines behavior.

People do not make long-term commitments, such as having children, without confidence in their financial future. Children represent the largest long-term investment a household can make. When confidence declines, that investment is postponed or abandoned.

At the same time, dual-income households became the norm not by choice but by necessity. A single income no longer supports a family in most developed economies. This fundamentally changes having children because both parents must remain in the workforce to maintain financial stability. Long ago, children helped to secure a family’s financial future, but the opposite rings true today.

Russia’s situation simply reflects these dynamics in a more concentrated form. Economic uncertainty, war, sanctions, and structural inefficiencies amplify the same forces present elsewhere. When surveys show that a large percentage of women do not plan to have children in the near term, that is not a psychological condition. It is a rational response to economic instability amid war. Women in Russia must now face the harsh reality that their husbands will face a compulsory draft, and they will be left raising children alone.

Historically, birth rates rise during periods of expansion and confidence. The post-World War II baby boom occurred because housing was affordable, employment was stable, and future prospects were positive. The economic structure supported family formation. Today, the structure works in the opposite direction. Housing costs, taxation, childcare expenses, and job insecurity create an environment in which the cost of raising children exceeds the perceived benefits. Governments attempt to offset this with subsidies, but those programs do not address the core issue, whixh is the declining return on productive activity relative to cost.

This is why policies focused on incentives have failed. Hungary introduced substantial financial benefits for families. Norway expanded welfare support. France has long provided family subsidies. None of these measures reversed the long-term decline because they do not change the underlying economic equation.

The demographic consequences are significant. A declining birthrate leads to a shrinking workforce, increasing dependency ratios, and pressure on pension systems. Governments respond by raising taxes or increasing borrowing, which further reduces the net income available to working households. This creates a feedback loop that reinforces the decline.

When confidence in the future declines, long-term investments decline. Children are the most fundamental long-term investment in any society. The decline in birth rates is therefore not a social anomaly but a direct reflection of economic confidence. Russia proposing psychological counseling illustrates how far removed policy responses have become from reality. This is not a question of convincing people to want children. It is a question of creating an economic environment where having children is viable.

The Pentagon is now requesting more than $200 billion in additional funding tied to the war with Iran, and the Secretary of Defense stated plainly that “it takes money to kill bad guys.” That statement may sound crude, but it is one of the rare moments where Washington actually tells the truth about war, because war has always been about capital, and the numbers now emerging are already confirming the pattern that has unfolded in every major conflict.

Within the first week alone, the United States spent approximately $11.3 billion, and more comprehensive estimates quickly pushed that figure toward $12.7 billion and beyond, with daily costs running in the range of $500 million or higher. These figures do not include troop deployment, equipment replacement, or reconstruction of depleted stockpiles, which historically account for the majority of total war expenditures, and that is where analysts always underestimate the true cost. The ripple effect of war through the global economy is another topic.

The United States is already operating with a military budget approaching $900 billion to over $960 billion depending on how it is measured under the latest authorization cycles, and that figure alone represents nearly 35% of total global military spending. When a government is already spending at that level before a major conflict escalates, any additional war simply layers on top of an already massive fiscal structure rather than creating a temporary expense.

Another $200 billion is not the cost of the war. That is the opening bid, as first numbers presented to Congress are always understated because they reflect immediate needs. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars followed the same trajectory, beginning with relatively modest projections and ultimately costing trillions.

The data coming out of the current conflict already shows the same dynamic. The Pentagon initially reported costs focused on munitions alone, yet analysts noted that these estimates excluded entire categories of spending, including logistics, personnel, and equipment replacement, which means the actual cost is already far higher than what is being publicly discussed. When high-cost systems such as long-range missiles, interceptor systems, and carrier strike group operations are deployed, the burn rate of capital accelerates dramatically, and those costs compound as the conflict continues.

It often costs millions of dollars to intercept weapons that cost tens of thousands to produce. Interceptors such as Patriot and THAAD systems can cost between $4 million and $12 million per unit, while the drones they are designed to destroy may cost a fraction of that.

Can we afford a war? Janet Yellen once said America could afford perpetual warfare. Yet, the US national debt has now exceeded $39 trillion, rising rapidly with deficits well above $1 trillion annually. War does not occur in isolation from fiscal policy. It accelerates existing trends, particularly the expansion of government debt and the diversion of capital away from productive investment.

From the perspective of the Economic Confidence Model, this is exactly what we expect to see at this stage in the cycle. The 2020.05 turning point marked the beginning of a major shift in confidence, where governments expanded aggressively and fiscal discipline deteriorated. By the time we reached the 2024.35 phase, geopolitical tensions were rising across multiple regions, and capital was increasingly moving toward government as uncertainty in the private sector intensified.

Now moving into the 2026 wave, the model has been pointing to rising instability, and war becomes both a consequence and a driver of that shift. Governments expand military spending as confidence declines domestically, and that expansion further concentrates capital within the public sector. The private sector does not benefit from this in any meaningful long-term way. War spending does create economic activity in the short term, but it does not create sustainable growth. It destroys capital and then requires additional capital to rebuild what has been destroyed. Every missile fired, every aircraft deployed, every ship sent into a conflict zone represents capital consumption, not capital formation.

The request for $200 billion to replenish stockpiles illustrates another reality that is always ignored. War does not end when the shooting stops. The financial obligations continue for years through the replacement of equipment, the expansion of industrial production, and the long-term care of personnel. That is why the true cost of war is always measured over decades, not months.

The FBI has now openly admitted that it is purchasing location data on Americans, confirming what many suspected for years. Director Kash Patel testified that the agency “does purchase commercially available information” and uses “all tools” to carry out its mission, which includes data capable of tracking people’s movements without a warrant.

This is being framed as a legal technicality, but that misses the entire point. The Constitution requires a warrant to obtain this type of information directly from telecom companies, yet by purchasing the same data from private brokers, the government simply bypasses that requirement. Lawmakers have already called this an “outrageous end-run around the Fourth Amendment,” and that is exactly what it is.

What we are witnessing is not new. Governments throughout history always expand surveillance when they begin to lose confidence domestically. The key detail here is not that the FBI is collecting data. It is how the data is being obtained. This information is sourced from the private sector through a multibillion-dollar data broker industry that aggregates location data from everyday phone apps, advertising systems, and digital platforms. The government is not hacking phones. It is simply buying what corporations already collect. That is what creates the legal gray area.

Data has become a commodity. Once something becomes a commodity, it can be bought and sold. Governments, like any other participant, will purchase what they need if the law allows it. The problem is that the law has not kept pace with technology, leaving a gap large enough to drive surveillance through.

This also ties directly into what I have warned about for years regarding financial surveillance. Governments began by monitoring bank accounts, tracking transactions, and implementing reporting requirements under the justification of preventing crime. That expanded steadily. Now we are moving into full behavioral tracking through digital data. The progression is always incremental, never abrupt.

The involvement of artificial intelligence makes this far more significant. Lawmakers have already warned that the ability to analyze “massive amounts of private information” changes the nature of surveillance entirely. It is no longer about targeting individuals. It becomes about pattern recognition across entire populations. That is a very different level of control.

The argument that the data is “commercially available” is also misleading. Just because something can be purchased does not mean it should be used without restriction by the state. The Constitution was designed to limit government power, not to be circumvented by market transactions.

The issue is that the legal framework itself is outdated and being used to justify practices that would have been considered unconstitutional in a previous era. This is how systems evolve. Technology advances, laws lag, and governments exploit the gap. By the time the public recognizes what has happened, the infrastructure is already in place.

From a confidence perspective, this is a warning sign. When governments begin to rely more on surveillance than on economic growth and stability, it reflects a shift away from maintaining confidence through prosperity and toward maintaining control through information.