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.

South Korea has now overtaken the United Kingdom to become the world’s eighth-largest stock market. The total market capitalization of Korean equities has exploded more than 45% in 2026 alone to roughly $4.04 trillion, while the UK has barely moved, rising about 3% to $3.99 trillion. What is most revealing is that, as recently as the end of 2024, the UK market was about twice the size of South Korea’s, underscoring just how quickly capital can migrate when the cycle turns.

The benchmark KOSPI has gone vertical, breaking above 6,600 and pushing total market capitalization beyond $4 trillion for the first time. This is not a random rally. It is concentrated, powerful, and driven by a very specific sector. Semiconductor giants like Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix now account for more than 40% of the index, which tells you immediately this is a capital flow into AI infrastructure, not a broad-based economic boom.

Compare that to the FTSE 100, which represents the largest companies listed in London. The UK market remains dominated by financials, energy, and consumer staples. These are legacy sectors. They do not attract speculative capital in the same way that technology does during a cycle shift. The FTSE has gained roughly 4% this year, which is not catastrophic, but it is completely disconnected from where the momentum is flowing globally.

When you step back and look at the historical performance, the contrast becomes even clearer. The KOSPI began with a base value of 100 in 1980 and spent decades struggling to break major psychological barriers like 1,000 and then 2,000. The real acceleration came after 2020, with the index pushing past 3,000 in 2021 and then exploding higher into 2025–2026, where it surged through 4,000, 5,000, and now over 6,500 in rapid succession. That is not normal growth, that is a vertical phase driven by concentrated capital inflows.

The FTSE 100, by contrast, has historically been far more stable and far less dynamic. It represents mature, dividend-heavy companies, and while that provides consistency, it does not produce explosive upside during periods of technological transformation. It is the difference between a capital preservation market and a capital attraction market. The UK has become the former.

This is exactly what the Economic Confidence Model has always shown. Capital does not move randomly, it seeks opportunity, and more importantly, it seeks momentum. When a new technological cycle emerges, whether it was railroads, automobiles, or now artificial intelligence, capital flows toward the regions that dominate that infrastructure. Right now, that is Asia, not Europe.

What is unfolding in Portugal is a perfect example of how the cycle turns quietly before the public even realizes what is taking place. The arms industry there is now expanding at a pace that would have seemed unthinkable just a few years ago, yet this is precisely what happens when geopolitical tensions rise and governments suddenly rediscover the need for hard power.

According to Deutsche Welle, Portugal’s defense sector is gaining momentum as companies shift toward producing military equipment, drones, and advanced technologies, driven largely by the war in Ukraine and the broader push across Europe to rearm. The country is no longer simply importing defense capabilities, it is trying to build them domestically, which reflects a structural change rather than a temporary response.

You have to understand what this really means. Europe allowed its defense industry to decay for decades under the assumption that war was a relic of the past. Now, suddenly, governments are pouring money into rebuilding capacity, and the private sector is following that capital. Portugal is just one piece of that puzzle, but it is significant because it shows how even smaller economies are being pulled into this broader military buildup.

The numbers confirm the shift. Portugal has already raised defense spending to about €6.12 billion, reaching roughly 2% of GDP ahead of schedule, and is now seeking billions more in EU-backed funding to modernize its military with drones, armored vehicles, and naval systems. This is not defensive housekeeping. This is preparation. Once governments begin allocating capital at this scale, they are not planning for peace.

I have said many times that war is the ultimate driver of technological advancement and capital concentration. That is exactly what you are seeing here. Portugal’s emerging arms industry is not growing in isolation. It is part of a continent-wide shift where governments are trying to rebuild military capacity after decades of neglect. The problem is that you cannot simply flip a switch and create an industrial base overnight. Europe deindustrialized much of its defense sector, and now it faces capacity constraints, shortages, and rising costs just to produce basic military equipment.

Governments are attempting to accelerate production at the same time they are dealing with economic stagnation, energy crises, and rising debt. That combination historically leads to instability, not strength. You cannot sustain long-term military expansion without a strong economic foundation, and Europe has been systematically undermining that foundation with its own policies.

Portugal’s case also highlights the geopolitical alignment taking place behind the curtain. While some European nations are talking about strategic autonomy, Portugal has made it clear it remains committed to NATO and the transatlantic alliance. That tells you this is not about independence. It is about preparing for a broader conflict structure where alliances become critical.

From a cyclical perspective, this aligns perfectly with the convergence we have been tracking. The war cycle and civil unrest cycle are colliding into this 2026–2027 window, and what you are seeing now is the early phase of capital shifting into defense. This is always how it begins. First comes the funding, then the industrial buildup, and finally the political justification. By the time the public fully understands what is happening, the trajectory is already locked in.

Portugal is not becoming a military power overnight, but that is not the point. The point is that even smaller nations are now being drawn into the rearmament cycle. When that happens across an entire continent, you are no longer looking at isolated policy decisions. You are looking at a systemic shift toward confrontation.

They parade through the streets chanting “no kings,” pretending to stand against authority and concentrated power, yet the moment a real monarch steps into the room, they rise to their feet applauding as if royalty itself suddenly became fashionable again. This is not merely hypocrisy, it is a revealing window into how politics operates beneath the surface.

The spectacle surrounding King Charles III being welcomed with cheers and a standing ovation by the very same political faction that markets itself as anti-establishment exposes the contradiction in plain sight. They rail against what they call authoritarianism at home, yet they celebrate it abroad when it suits the narrative. It reflects a deeper pattern I have warned about repeatedly, where ideology is merely a tool and consistency is abandoned the moment it becomes inconvenient.

If you strip away the slogans, what you find is that these movements are not opposed to centralized authority. Quite the opposite. They are deeply in favor of it, provided they are the ones holding the reins. The idea of “no kings” is simply branding. It resonates emotionally, particularly with younger audiences who have been taught to distrust institutions, but in practice, the same people will support unelected bodies, international organizations, and even hereditary monarchies when those entities align with their broader political agenda.

Governments and political movements always gravitate toward structures that consolidate authority. Whether it is a monarchy, a bureaucracy, or a supranational institution, the form does not matter nearly as much as the control it provides. That is why you see politicians condemning “elite power” one day and then celebrating it the next when it comes wrapped in the right symbolism.

The public is told one story while a completely different set of actions unfolds behind the curtain. They are encouraged to oppose “kings” in theory, yet applaud them in practice, because the real objective is not to dismantle hierarchy, but to reshape it.

President Donald Trump’s Blockade will propel a depression in Europe. This may be the time for China to do the same to Taiwan. Trump has told his aides to get ready for a risky, extended blockade of Iran. The computer warned from the outset that this would NOT be a quick in-and-out as Netanyahu told Trump. It’s always his same tactics – assassinate the leadership and the government will fall. Netanyahu is a HIGHLY dangerous psychopath in my opinion. He has NEVER been correct even once. And as this clip from his 2002 testimony before Congress, cheering on the Iraq invasion for weapons that never existed, shows, he was the instigator of the Iraq War and propelled the US into escalating debt, for he does not give a shit about anyone but himself.

Based on the actions of Netanyahu, there is no way that I, as Iran, would now surrender nukes. I would be on high speed to get one up ASAP. That is the only way to prevent another invasion. Pakistan and North Korea have nukes. That is the only reason they are left alone. Iraq was a wake-up call. Without nukes, you are now vulnerable.

US sources are relaying that this will be a drawn-out, Cold War-style conflict, and Trump has expressed frustration with Iran’s latest proposal to end the clash, which has now entered its third month. They are consistent and want a guarantee on permanently ending the fighting, followed by discussions to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and then finally a deal involving Iran’s nuclear program. The computer shows this will begin to heat up from mid-May.

What is unfolding right now is not just another dispute inside OPEC. This is the beginning of the breakdown of coordinated global energy policy under the pressure of war. The decision by the United Arab Emirates to exit OPEC effective May 1 comes as oil supply is being physically disrupted, not merely negotiated.

Officials in the UAE have tried to frame this as a strategic move, stating they need “greater flexibility to manage production independently” and to expand output capacity without being constrained by quotas. That statement alone reveals the real issue. They have the ability to produce more oil, but OPEC restrictions have prevented them from doing so at a time when global supply is tightening. When a producer is sitting on capacity in the middle of a supply shock, remaining in a cartel becomes a liability rather than an advantage.

The numbers here are critical. OPEC production has already fallen sharply, with estimates showing output around 20.79 million barrels per day in March, while disruptions tied to the Iran conflict are removing as much as 7–10 million barrels per day from global supply flows, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz. That is not a minor disruption. That is a structural shock to the system.

At the same time, oil prices are reacting exactly as expected. Brent crude has surged above 110 dollars per barrel, with U.S. crude crossing 100. Analysts have warned that “there is no clear end in sight to the supply disruption,” which means volatility is not temporary. It becomes embedded in the system.

The UAE has made it clear that it intends to increase production capacity toward 5 million barrels per day by 2027, well above its current quota near 3 million. That gap explains everything. By leaving OPEC, they can monetize that capacity immediately rather than waiting for collective agreements that no longer align with their national interest. Estimates suggest this could translate into tens of billions in additional annual revenue.

I have written many times that OPEC was never a permanent solution to managing energy markets. It was a political construct that worked only when member states had aligned interests and a shared incentive to restrict supply. The moment those interests diverge, the structure begins to fail. OPEC has historically struggled with compliance. Members routinely exceeded quotas when it suited them, particularly during periods of high prices or fiscal stress. That was always the underlying weakness.

What we are seeing now is that weakness being exposed under extreme conditions. War changes everything. When geopolitical survival overrides economic coordination, agreements collapse. OPEC cannot function when members are facing direct threats or when they see an opportunity to maximize revenue independently. This is precisely why these types of organizations tend to break down during periods of rising global tension.

The UAE’s decision signals something much larger about the future of OPEC. If one major producer walks away to pursue independent production, others will begin to reconsider their own participation. The incentive to cooperate declines as the incentive to produce increases. That creates a feedback loop where the cartel loses its ability to enforce discipline.

At the same time, the global energy landscape has already shifted. The United States has emerged as a dominant producer, reducing the relative influence of OPEC compared to previous decades. When OPEC was formed, it had far greater control over global supply. Today, that control is diluted, and fragmentation only accelerates that trend.

Looking forward, OPEC is unlikely to disappear overnight, but its role will change. Instead of acting as a unified force capable of stabilizing markets, it will become a looser alliance with diminishing influence. Pricing power will shift toward individual producers and market forces rather than coordinated quotas. That transition introduces far greater volatility because there is no longer a central mechanism to manage supply in times of crisis.

Geopolitical conflict will increasingly dictate energy flows. When supply routes are threatened and production becomes a strategic asset, countries will prioritize control over cooperation. Energy becomes a tool of leverage rather than a shared economic resource.

The contradiction globally is becoming impossible to ignore. While policymakers in Europe continue to push for eliminating fossil fuels, producers are expanding output and repositioning themselves to control supply. This divergence guarantees instability. There is no substitute capable of replacing this level of energy demand, and the attempt to force that transition is colliding directly with geopolitical reality.

The UAE’s exit is not an isolated event. It is a signal that the system is changing. Energy markets are moving away from coordinated control and toward fragmentation driven by national interest. Once that shift takes hold, it does not reverse easily.

The real takeaway is simple. When supply is disrupted, cooperation breaks down, and producers begin acting independently, the result is sustained volatility. Prices rise, markets become unstable, and geopolitical tension intensifies. This is not a short-term disruption. It is the early stage of a much larger transformation in the global energy order.

There has always been this convenient belief that Big Tech operates independently from government, as if the data you store, search, and upload exists in some neutral corporate space, but that illusion is breaking down rapidly as the lines between Silicon Valley and Washington disappear in real time.

Google has now entered into a classified agreement with the Pentagon allowing its artificial intelligence systems to be used for “any lawful government purpose,” which is a phrase that sounds benign until you understand what it actually means in practice.

This is not a narrow contract tied to a single project. It opens the door for integration into mission planning, intelligence analysis, and even weapons targeting systems operating on classified networks, and once those systems are embedded, the distinction between commercial technology and state infrastructure effectively disappears.

At the same time, Google does not retain control over how that technology is ultimately used, because under the terms being reported, the company has no ability to veto lawful government operations, meaning once access is granted, the downstream application is no longer in their hands.  Please be reminded that Google has been collecting data on everyone and everything for decades: Google Maps, Google Search, Google Photos, Google Drive, Gmail, etc.

This is where the narrative people have been told begins to collapse, because for years the assumption was that your data sat within a corporate ecosystem governed by terms of service and internal policies, yet what is now being constructed is something entirely different, a shared infrastructure where private data, artificial intelligence, and state power intersect.

Even inside Google, there is significant resistance to this shift, with more than 600 employees signing letters to CEO Sundar Pichai warning that these systems could be used for “lethal autonomous weapons and mass surveillance,” and expressing concern that once deployed in classified environments, there is no meaningful oversight or transparency. “We want to see AI benefit humanity; not to see it being used in inhumane or extremely harmful ways. This includes lethal autonomous weapons and mass surveillance but extends beyond,” the letter reads.

This is part of a broader shift in which every major AI company is now aligning with the defense sector, competing for contracts reportedly worth hundreds of millions of dollars, thereby transforming artificial intelligence from a commercial tool into a strategic asset within global power dynamics.

From my perspective, this follows the same pattern we see in every major cycle of power consolidation, where private innovation is gradually absorbed into state control during periods of rising geopolitical tension. Once that process reaches a certain threshold, the distinction between public and private effectively vanishes.

People focus on the wrong question, asking whether Google is “sharing your data” directly with the government, when the real issue is far more structural. Once the same systems that process your emails, photos, searches, and behavior are integrated into government operations, the architecture itself becomes unified, and access becomes a matter of policy, not possibility.

When artificial intelligence becomes the interface between data and decision-making, whoever controls that system controls the interpretation of reality itself, and that is where the real power lies. For the first time in history, we are witnessing the convergence of data, technology, and government authority into a single structure that has already become far too powerful to dismantle.

The latest polling on Keir Starmer is not simply weak, it is a clear rejection. Labour has slid sharply, with support falling toward the high teens in some recent surveys, while his personal approval rating has dropped deep into negative territory, approaching levels that historically signal a government losing control of the narrative. This is not a temporary dip. It reflects a growing disconnect between policy and reality.

What the public is reacting to is not difficult to understand. The UK economy is under pressure from all sides. Borrowing costs have climbed above 5%, households are still dealing with elevated living expenses, and growth remains sluggish. At the same time, policy continues to lean heavily into Net Zero commitments that raise energy costs while offering no reliable alternative capable of sustaining industrial demand. You cannot impose higher input costs on an economy already under stress and expect confidence to improve.

Starmer positioned himself as the steady hand, promising stability after years of political turmoil. Instead, the perception is that nothing fundamental has changed. The same structural problems remain in place, and in some cases, they are being reinforced. Energy policy continues to squeeze industry, regulation remains heavy, and there is no coherent strategy to reverse capital outflows or stimulate productive growth. People are not reacting emotionally. They are reacting to what they are experiencing in their daily lives.

There is also the issue of credibility. Once a government begins to lose public confidence, every decision is questioned. Scandals, internal disputes, and policy reversals all begin to carry more weight because the trust is no longer there. The Mandelson controversy only added to the sense that decisions are being made behind the curtain rather than in the open. That perception accelerates the decline.

What makes this particularly important is that this is not isolated to the UK. Governments across Europe are facing similar backlash because they have followed the same playbook, restricting energy, expanding regulation, and ignoring the economic consequences. The result has been stagnation, rising costs, and a steady erosion of confidence. When people feel their standard of living slipping, they do not care about political messaging. They look for alternatives.

Starmer’s problem is that he represents continuity at a time when the public wants change. You cannot campaign as a reformer and then govern as a caretaker of the same policies that created the problem. The numbers reflect that contradiction. This is not about personality. It is about policy failure becoming visible in real time.

Once sentiment turns this sharply, it rarely stabilizes on its own. It tends to accelerate as opposition grows and internal pressure builds. That is what these polls are signaling. The market may tolerate uncertainty for a time, but the public does not. When confidence breaks, it becomes a political issue first and an economic one shortly after.

PRIVATE BLOG – Stock Market Update – Crash or Boom?

Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please visit Ask-Socrates.com.

https://ask-socrates.com/