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.

Macron just said  “Free speech is pure bullshit if nobody knows how you are guided to this so-called free speech, especially when it is guided from one hate speech to another.” He expect the EU to clash with Trump because they are in dire straights and when a country is in the death spiral, they will become increasingly authoritarian. The two worst offenders are France and Spain. Macron has been covertly telling French institutions to sell dollars and bring the money home pushing the euro higher which then reduced their trade surplus.

Last April 2025, in response to Trump’s sweeping tariffs, Macron called for European companies to suspend planned investment in the United States, stating “Investments to come or investments announced in recent weeks should be suspended until things are clarified with the United States”

Macron has been pushing “targeting digital services and financing mechanisms of the US economy.” We are seeing that in trying to come up with a European credit card and banning both Visa and Mastercard.

At Davos 2026, Macron noted that European savings are “overinvested in bonds and sometimes in equities – but outside Europe,” suggesting he wants Europeans to invest more domestically. They call Macron the Petite Napoleon. Despite his approval rating at 11%, probably lower than any world leader in history, he is carrying on the dream of Napoleon and Charles De Gaulle who destroy the gold standard because of his hated of the United States. He withdrew France from NATO which is why they have independent nukes. De Gaulle ordered all US troops and NATO instalation out of France which prompted the US to ask if that included the dead America buried there to defend France.

At the Munich Security Conference in February 2026, Macron said Europe must redesign its security architecture independently and confirmed Paris is holding strategic nuclear talks with allies, referring to a more “holistic” approach to nuclear deterrence among European allies.

In an address to the nation in March 2025, Macron announced plans to negotiate with the allies the possibility of placing European countries under the protection of France’s nuclear deterrence forces. Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Denmark have expressed readiness to discuss the issue. This is why they call him the Petit Napoleon. He is once again trying to make France the dominant power of Europe and it has been him, according to sources, who pushes to invade Russia to gain the assets to rise above the United States as a rival.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Germany does NOT want to develop its own nuclear weapons, but is interested in incorporating French and British atomic bombs in a deterrence arrangement reminiscent of NATO’s U.S.-based nuclear umbrella.

Wolfgang Ischinger at the Munich Security Conference noted that France has air-based nuclear-capable cruise missiles that can be deployed from Rafale aircraft, and “perhaps in the future, such systems could be stationed not only in France, as has been the case so far, but also in Poland or Germany, on a rotating or even permanent basis. Yes, one could even consider replicating the US model of nuclear sharing, whereby these weapons could be launched from suitable partner aircrafts.”

Macron’s proposal are definitely an offer to build an independent nuclear deterrent within the EU framework. Any arrangement whereby Paris would transfer sovereignty over the use of its own nuclear bombs to an EU institution or another state is a no-go in terms of domestic politics. Macron wants to replace the US and retain control of all nukes, not hand them over to the EU.

So yes—Macron has offered extended nuclear protection to Europe, and discussions about potentially stationing French nuclear-capable systems in Germany (similar to NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement) are part of the conversation, though final decision-making would remain with France.

Behind the curtain, it has been Macron who is trying to replace the USA and lead all of Europe as the modern version of Napoleon. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has emphasized that European nations cannot defend themselves against Russia without the support of the United States, suggesting that they would need to significantly increase their defense spending in the absence of U.S. assistance. He warned that losing U.S. support would undermine Europe’s security and freedom. Rutte said bluntly during an appearance at the European Parliament: “If anyone thinks here again that the European Union, or Europe as a whole, can defend itself without the U.S., keep on dreaming,”

This is why reliable sources see through Macron seeking to seize power and take Europe into a third World War in hopes to leading Europe and fulfilling the dream of Napoleon and Charles De Gaulle. It was De Gaulle who was redeeming dollars for gold believing that if france had the larges gold reserves that the franc would replace the dollar.

Charles De Gaulle was an extreme nationalist far worse than they acuse Trump today. He objected in February 1965 to what he called the “Exorbitant Privilege” of the US dollar’s dominant role and began converting France’s dollar reserves into gold, which put pressure on Bretton Woods. In 1967, I was there in Montreal with my Family at the World’s Fair. My father had met De Gaulle bing with Patton who liberated France. My father was a colonel with Patton and told me how De Gaulle demanded that he lead the victory parade ahead of the Americans as he liberated France. In Montreal, he encouraged Quebec to separate from Canada because they were the English. He was still anti-American and British all because they defeated Napoleon. He refused to allow Britain to join the European Community. Britain joined ONLY after De Gaulle died. Macron seems to be suffering from De Gaulle syndrome.

Switzerland is now preparing to vote on a proposal to cap its population at 10 million by 2050, and the entire debate is being framed in the press as merely an immigration issue. That is far too simplistic. What this really reflects is a rising global tension between economic reality, demographic trends, and political narratives about sustainability and population management.

Under the initiative, once the population approaches 9.5 million, the government would be required to tighten immigration, residency, and asylum policies, and potentially even renegotiate agreements with the EU on free movement if the cap is exceeded. Switzerland already has about 9.1 million residents, with a large share foreign-born, largely from EU countries.

Supporters argue the cap would protect resources, housing, and social systems, while critics warn it could trigger labor shortages and harm economic growth in a country heavily dependent on foreign workers.

I have written many times that the concept of “population control” is not always presented directly. It is often framed as sustainability, climate targets, migration limits, or resource protection. The terminology changes, but the underlying policy direction becomes increasingly centralized and authoritative. Politicians believe they must begin managing how many people can live, move, and work within a system. That is a very dangerous trend because it expands government authority over the most fundamental aspect of society: demographics.

Switzerland has seen a surge of migrants from Islamic nations, which has led to cultural clashes. The “No to 10 Million Switzerland” initiative acknowledges the downfalls of mass migration as the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) openly wants to close the border and is considered “far-right” for its beliefs. Reframing population control as an issue for the environment and resources would allow the left to jump on board without being demonized for recognizing that certain cultures cannot assimilate to European life.

Globalist figures like Bill Gates have openly spoken about population growth in the context of sustainability and resource allocation. I have repeatedly warned that population control is rarely presented bluntly; it is framed as climate policy, public health, sustainability, or infrastructure capacity. The danger is not in any single proposal, but in the normalization of the idea that governments and unelected institutions should “manage” population levels as an economic variable.

Switzerland is particularly important because it is not an EU member yet is deeply integrated into the European economic system. If a population cap forces restrictions on immigration or free-movement agreements, it will not just be a domestic policy shift. It would signal fragmentation in the European labor and capital framework.

The Swiss are in favor of the proposal. The LeeWas research institute conducted a poll in November 2025: 48% are in favor, 41% are against, and 11% are undecided. Yet we know the wishes of the people are never truly acknowledged. The bureaucrats must believe that the measures would benefit them directly.

Nations begin to look inward during times of instability. Tighter immigration control, capital control discussions, increased surveillance of movement and finances—these are all par for the course. Once governments normalize the idea that population levels must be administratively managed for sustainability, it opens the door to broader regulatory control over society.

Zillow is now openly acknowledging a shift in the US housing market that most analysts are still refusing to properly interpret. They are framing it as a “trend change” in homebuyer preferences toward smaller, adaptable, and more functional homes rather than large status properties, but this is not a lifestyle trend. It is an economic consequence of declining affordability and a structural shift in purchasing power.

During the peak years of cheap money, the housing market was driven by excess liquidity. Low interest rates inflated asset prices and encouraged buyers to stretch into larger homes, oversized layouts, and high-maintenance properties that projected wealth. Now that mortgage rates remain around 6% instead of the artificially suppressed levels of the pandemic era, the entire psychology of the housing market is changing.

Zillow notes that monthly mortgage payments are already about 8.4% lower than a year ago as rates eased slightly, yet affordability remains constrained. What they are describing as buyers prioritizing “adaptable” and “functional” homes is, in reality, the market adjusting to the end of an artificially inflated cycle. When carrying costs rise from insurance, taxes, maintenance, and utilities, then buyers tend to see big homes as big liabilities.

“Homes featured dramatic two-story foyers, arched doorways, decorative columns and complex rooflines designed to project prosperity from the street,” Zillow wrote. “Listings highlighted formal living rooms and formal dining rooms, spaces reserved for special occasions rather than everyday use. Home theaters were status upgrades: the bigger the screen, the better,” Zillow continued. “Oversize primary suites, Jacuzzi tubs and walk-in closets were must-haves, while energy efficiency and climate resilience were rarely mentioned.”

This fits perfectly with historical real estate cycles I have discussed in my reports and in Real Estate Outlook. Real estate does not crash immediately after a bubble; it transitions into a stagnation phase where prices stabilize, inventory rises, and buyer behavior shifts toward practicality.

Zillow also expects only modest home value growth in 2026 ,roughly in the low single digits, while mortgage costs still consume a large share of household income. When buyers begin prioritizing resilience, efficiency, and flexibility over luxury, it signals uncertainty about the future.

We must also understand the demographic and economic layer beneath this shift. Millennials and younger buyers are entering the market with significantly higher debt loads, higher insurance costs, and elevated living expenses. Starter homes are less practical. Entering the housing market in general is a stretch for many young potential buyers.

At the same time, older homeowners are locked into low mortgage rates and are reluctant to sell. This creates a supply distortion that keeps prices firm even as demand weakens. That is more of a classic stagnation model rather than a 2008-style collapse.

Zillow’s narrative that homes will become more “intuitive, personal, and adaptable” over the next 20 years is essentially a polite way of saying the era of excess housing consumption is ending. Consumers are concerned that larger purchases will lead to “house poor” finances.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announces he is “forced to raid the rainy day fund, retiree benefit trust reserve, and to increase property taxes” in order to keep the city on “firm financial footing”

pic.twitter.com/iIJ8Fu4f4D

— America (@america) February 17, 2026

Here we go again. A city runs expansive social programs, expands spending, promises benefits, and then suddenly discovers a “budget crisis” that requires raiding reserves, tapping rainy day funds, drawing from retiree trusts, and raising property taxes to maintain so-called fiscal stability. New York City’s latest proposal openly admits it may withdraw nearly $1 billion from its rainy day fund, hundreds of millions from retiree health benefit trusts, and consider a roughly 9.5% property tax increase to close a multibillion-dollar deficit. This is not an emergency measure. This is the predictable outcome of policy trends I have repeatedly warned about, particularly in cities dominated by progressive and socialistic fiscal models.

I have written before about how politicians like Gavin Newsom and other liberal Democrats have also tapped rainy day funds during periods of economic stress while simultaneously expanding long-term obligations. The pattern is always the same: spend during the boom, blame external factors during the slowdown, and then drain reserves to avoid immediate political consequences. Rainy day funds are supposed to be buffers for recessions or crises, not routine financing tools to sustain structurally imbalanced budgets. Once governments normalize using reserves during periods of growth or mild deficits, they remove the very cushion needed when a true economic downturn arrives.

The mayor’s own budget framework acknowledges a significant fiscal gap and presents two paths: higher taxes on wealth and corporations or shifting the burden through property taxes and reserve withdrawals. You cannot continuously expand spending commitments while assuming tax revenues will keep pace indefinitely. That is not how economic cycles work. Capital is highly mobile, and as taxation rises, the tax base erodes.

Socialistic policy prioritizes redistribution and government expansion under the assumption that taxation can permanently fund rising obligations. In reality, economic confidence is the key driver of revenue. If policies discourage investment, business expansion, and high-income residency, the very tax base required to fund social programs begins to contract. Then governments are forced into the exact scenario we are seeing higher property taxes, reserve depletion, and political pressure for more state aid. Property taxes rise, services expand, costs escalate, and reserves shrink until a cyclical downturn exposes the imbalance.

Socialistic policies promoted by many progressive and socialist-leaning Democrats rest on the assumption that government can endlessly expand, redistribute, and intervene without consequence, as if economic cycles no longer apply. In the end, it is not markets that fail these systems, but the policy belief that government control can permanently override the business cycle.

PRIVATE BLOG – War with Iran Is it On Time?

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/

Unemployment in the UK has risen to 5.2%, marking the highest level in nearly five years. This is a cyclical development that reflects a broader decline in economic confidence across Europe and the United Kingdom, which has been building beneath the surface for several quarters.

Governments will inevitably attempt to frame rising unemployment as temporary, yet labor markets are lagging indicators. Employers do not reduce hiring first; they slow investment, cut expansion plans, and only then begin to adjust employment. By the time unemployment begins to rise, the economic cycle has already turned at the margin. This is precisely the sequence we have seen historically during periods of stagnation driven by policy uncertainty and rising cost structures.

The UK economy is particularly vulnerable because it is heavily dependent on services rather than industrial production. When a service-driven economy begins to show labor weakness, it signals that consumer demand, business margins, and forward expectations are all deteriorating simultaneously. This is not the type of labor softening that accompanies a healthy expansion. It is the type that emerges when businesses face higher regulatory burdens, wage pressures, taxation concerns, and an uncertain policy outlook.

From the standpoint of the Economic Confidence Model, labor markets respond after capital flows and investment begin to shift. First, capital hesitates. Second, investment weakens. Third, employment softens. The UK data suggests that the labor market is now catching up to the broader slowdown that has already been visible in investment and business activity.

As unemployment rises, governments typically increase intervention, subsidies, and regulation in an attempt to “protect jobs.” Historically, this approach often backfires because it raises the cost of hiring and further discourages private-sector expansion.

The key point is that unemployment is not merely a domestic statistic. It is tied directly to global competitiveness and capital flows. When regions face higher operational costs, regulatory uncertainty, and declining economic confidence, capital reallocates elsewhere. Employment inevitably follows that shift.

What you are looking at with Canada completing the roughly $9.4 billion Darlington nuclear refurbishment early and under budget is something that completely contradicts the prevailing political narrative about energy policy in the West. The final 878-MW unit is now preparing to return to commercial operation, marking the end of a decade-long rebuild of the four-reactor complex, finished four months ahead of schedule and about $110 million under budget.

A massive nuclear infrastructure project in a Western country was delivered ahead of schedule and under budget. That alone tells you this was treated as a strategic national priority rather than a political talking point.

The refurbishment extends the plant’s operational life by decades and secures over 3,500 megawatts of reliable baseload electricity into at least the mid-2050s. This is the key difference between energy policy driven by engineering reality versus ideological policy driven by climate politics and bureaucratic regulation. Nuclear provides stability. Wind and solar provide volatility unless backed by baseload power.

From a cyclical perspective, this fits directly into what I have written in my reports on energy, sovereign debt, and industrial competitiveness. Nations that secure long-term, reliable energy sources maintain industrial strength. Nations that deliberately dismantle baseload energy in favor of politically fashionable policies inevitably face rising costs, deindustrialization, and declining confidence.

Canada’s approach here is pragmatic. The project began back in 2016 as a long-term refurbishment of all four CANDU reactors, replacing major components and effectively giving the facility another generation of operational life. This is not simply maintenance — it is strategic infrastructure renewal.

Compare this to Europe. The EU has been shutting nuclear plants, imposing Net Zero mandates, and then wondering why industrial production is collapsing and energy costs remain structurally elevated. Energy policy is not separate from economic performance. It is the foundation of it. Germany is the perfect case study of how abandoning nuclear in favor of ideology undermines industrial competitiveness.

What is even more significant is the timing. This project comes as global electricity demand is rising due to electrification, AI infrastructure, and reindustrialization trends. Governments are beginning to realize that intermittent energy cannot sustain modern economies or military readiness. Baseload power is not optional in a geopolitical cycle turning toward fragmentation and potential conflict.

The fact that this refurbishment is being called one of the world’s largest nuclear life-extension projects also signals something deeper: nuclear is returning as a strategic asset. Historically, during periods of geopolitical tension and rising sovereign risk, governments shift toward energy security. That is exactly what the model has been projecting into this 2026–2032 window of rising volatility.

According to the February 2026 Euro indicators data, euro area GDP expanded by just 0.3% in the fourth quarter, matching the previous quarter and underscoring a persistent low-growth environment across the bloc.

Year-over-year growth is hovering around roughly 1.3%, which is hardly a recovery when you consider the massive fiscal expansion, energy disruptions, and regulatory overreach imposed across the EU in recent years. This is exactly the type of sluggish cyclical performance that aligns with a declining confidence model in government policy rather than a normal business cycle expansion.

At the same time, inflation has fallen to 1.7% in January 2026, down from 2.0% in December, with energy prices still contracting and services remaining the primary source of price pressure. On the surface, bureaucrats in Brussels and the ECB will celebrate this as a victory over inflation. But this is where mainstream economics consistently gets it wrong. Disinflation alongside stagnant growth is not true strength.

Services inflation remains elevated while energy prices are negative year-over-year. That reflects structural distortions created by EU energy policy, sanctions, and the forced transition toward Net Zero, which I have repeatedly warned would crush industrial competitiveness across Germany, France, and the broader eurozone. You cannot deindustrialize an economy and then pretend weak inflation is a sign of stability.

Growth is being driven disproportionately by a handful of economies, such as Spain, while core economies like Germany and France remain structurally weak and politically unstable. A monetary union with a one-size-fits-all policy always produces divergence. Strong regions survive; weaker ones stagnate under a centralized monetary policy they cannot control.

From a capital flow perspective, this data reinforces the broader trend we are tracking into the 2026 ECM window. Capital chases stability. When growth is stuck at 0.3% quarterly and inflation is falling below target, global capital begins to question long-term stability. That is precisely how slow capital flight begins.

The ECB is now trapped. With inflation falling below target and growth barely positive, they cannot justify aggressive tightening, yet easing risks further currency instability and capital outflows. This is the classic sovereign debt-cycle dilemma I outlined in Manipulating the World Economy. Central banks do not control the economy; rather, they react to it, and usually too late.

What we are witnessing is not a recovery. The ECM has long projected rising volatility into 2026, and Europe’s data is lining up perfectly with that model.