Topic: Economic Devastation - page 114. (Read 504813 times)

Differentiate between predicting when and where a tornado will strike and predicting levels of abnormal tornadoes to increase during a season. As I wrote to you before, what seems chaotic to you, is a long-term cyclical pattern to those who have input all the data and had the computer correlate. Armstrong has done that. And he continues to be accurate on all of his predictions. Those who haven't taken the time to study his record, are going to be the big losers.


"Violent storms" says nothing about aggregate damage levels. I am amazed at how poor the English comprehension of so many readers. Perhaps it is because my reading comprehension is near to the 100th percentile.


You continue to force me to repeat what I had written to you earlier. That the short-term predictions are much more noisy. Historical cycles predict the long-term turns very accurately as Armstrong has emphatically and unequivocally proven! (if you haven't studied his record since 1985 or so, then you are ignorant of this proof)


Again you make me repeat what I wrote to your before, that what appears to be unpredictable to those who haven't model sufficient historical data to establish the long-term cycles, is not random to those who have collected the necessary data.

If you study Taleb's anti-fragility math (which followed his Black Swan work), it is clear that systems overcommit to error because they lack a holistic perspective.

Taleb is pointing out that they are unseen and that is what makes them Black Swans, but he is saying the reason they are unseen and unpredictable is because the system is structured in such a way that makes it incapable of incrementally adjusting to error. He makes two essential equivalent points (they are duals). One is that bottom-up systems have more degrees-of-freedom and the agents are closer to the error and can adjust more readily (this is the simulated annealing point I have been making over and over again since at least 2010). Secondly, implicit in his math is that if there is a historically repeating pattern then this information would not prevent top-down systems from being unable to adjust to the error that the information makes clear.

I understand you are incapable of understanding.


I ignore pontifications from the ignorant.

Again differentiate between modeling every short-term event and modeling cyclical patterns of aggregate activity.

For example, the cyclical movement of the earth's north and south magnetic poles, which impact aggregate weather patterns.




Point is that fundamental analysis (e.g. climatologists) isn't necessary to recognize repeating patterns which be correlated without any fundamental knowledge. And it turns out that fundamental analysis is often very poor at making predictions, because it fails to account for some factors, e.g. Greenspan not accounting for international capital flows.

...

Tornadoes and the seasons of their severity, at least me to me, seem to be one of those wildly complicated systems (full of chaotic and unpredictable factors) that cannot be well predicted except on days with their characteristic weather patterns.  Besides, tornadoes cause relatively little damage in the aggregate.

Hurricanes cause more damage.  And seasonality of hurricanes can be somewhat predicted by following the "El Niño" patterns of the warm waters of the Pacific.  A new El Niño seems to be starting up even now.  Soon I will ask my Peruvian in-laws if their country is being affected by the typical flooding seen in the deserts of N. Peru during an El Niño.  Here in the USA, there tend to be fewer hurricanes hitting the US East and Gulf Coasts during an El Niño season.  Costly ANDREW, apparently, was an exception.

Earthquakes?  Much money is being poured into (sometimes VERY costly events), yet their prediction record is not good.  A little better close to a big quake, but still not very good.

*   *   *

When I occasionally consider predicting various outcomes of human (revolutions, wars, fashions) and financial outcomes (wildly complex and confounding & interactive (reflexivity)), I am at a complete loss to make accurate assessments in most cases.  In some cases (very high P/E rations in stocks, other ratios that get extreme, etc.), I can make educated guesses, which are really not worth much.

History can provide some insight, but very fallible (eg, short-term runs in gold price).

Re Black Swans, I go back to N. N. Taleb: Black Swans are (typically) not predictable nor even really foreseeable!  9-11 was not forseeable (except in a general sense of some kind of a Muslim extremist attack).  YES, iamback notes these are long-tail events, but there are so many possible long-tail events that I think these are NOT foreseeable in the aggregate.  Which of the thousands of low-probability events WILL occur?  Hmm......

I do not have the mathematical background (not TOO far away, but not close enough) to assess how much a certain series of financial events that Armstrong's computers could look at and predict, but my strong guess is that while it may very well be much better than my own, well, I don't think a high reliability is there.  If we look at an admittedly bad analogy, his 30,000 factors (and whatever links and correlations he finds between and among them), there are a LOT more than 30,000 possible factors, with unknown connections, that make his predictions very uncertain.  Worth reading, but not worth hold one's breathe on...

A good sense of probability of predicted events looks worth keeping in mind, especially at the RISKS (severities of outcomes) of certain outcomes.

No brain can model the Universe.  Or even the Earth.  Good insights are worthwhile, but caution would suggest looking at a VARIETY of probable outcomes, and preparing for ones where possible.

He mentions tornados and we get exactly tornados exactly in the Fall of 2013 exactly as he predicted. How can you fathom that his prediction did not come true?!?!? You are acting like a politician who can't admit he is wrong and will double-down deeper and deeper on spin to obfuscate the facts.

Why do you continue to focus on "like hurricanes"? Do you not comprehend the English language? The word "like" does not mean "guaranteed to be". It is used for making an analogy to similar but not exactly same example.

---

Surely you understand that average for the year is not the same as an abnormal increase in the Fall and especially occurrence in a region where they are not common.

You just obfuscated by including in the Midwest where tornadoes are routine into the aberrational data, thus hiding the aberration in an irrelevant statistic.

Come on, you are not this dense. Surely you can comprehend that no where in his prediction was something about the aggregate for the USA as a whole nor for the entire year. Any one who lives in the USA knows the weather is not correlated across the entire nation.

He stated that the volatility in the weather would be in both directions. Thus it is consistent with his prediction that tornado activity in the Midwest could abnormally decline, while violent weather could abnormally rise in another region of the country.

What he is talking about is massive change in the weather. If you had been reading his blog carefully for the past couple of years, you would understand that his blog posts build off prior blog posts. And he has been talking about the weather becoming  much more abnormal. So the Midwest is having less tornadoes, California having more, and the NorthWet is becoming drier and warmer. These are all entirely consistent with what he has been predicting.

Sorry you are really not objective.

If you try to understand Armstrong by cherry picking a sentence without the context, you will never understand.

Here is yet among a litany of examples where you are not fully objective (informed) about the data and facts because you lack depth of correlation of many things Armstrong has written.

True he has not given an exact date for Greece exit, but he has made it clear that most likely timing was not before 2015.75 at least. He was hoping Greece could exit before 2015.75, but he knows that his cycle models take precedence over his desires and emotions. He even hoped Scotland would exit from the U.K., but his models told it wasn't likely before 2016.

Afair Armstrong did write that he expects Greece to exit afair within 8.6 years from the turn date. What was not clear was what he meant by "turn date". Did he mean 2007.15 or Pi later 2010.29 (as shown on the chart I quoted) or from the 2015.75 turn date? (maybe he is not yet sure himself)

The following from Armstrong makes it clear that he wasn't really seriously expecting Greece to exit recently. He was hoping. He has stated else where that the first country to exit and act as safe haven for the rule of law will quickly bottom and rise. Thus if Greece exited in early 2015, it wouldn't likely still be in depression after 2020 as he wrote below must be the case.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/17/depression-never-ends-at-the-same-time-for-everyone/



It appears that the EU will simply cause the loss of confidence in Europe by shooting itself in the foot instead of requiring Greece actually exit for it to happen:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/06/ecb-insanity-imf-tardiness-tearing-europe-apart-yet-they-r-2-stupid-to-understand-it/


The need to pressure Greece to stay in is in effect reversing all the effort Mario Draghi did to buy confidence with his edicts.

The EU will then be forced to bailout Greece at much higher costs due to the very high interest rates on Greek debt (denominated in Euros).

Armstrong has refuted that with historical examples where stocks rise when interest rates rise in the similar circumstances. Greenspan is not factoring in international capital flows, and the dollar and USA will be the only safe haven still standing in 2016 because Europe will collapse roughly 18 months before the USA will[1], and thus we will get a huge bubble in the US stocks peaking in 2017 some where near 40,000 for the Dow (DJIA).

Greenspan will end up being correct after 2017, when international capital flows into the USA peak and turn. Where do the capital flows go after 2017? Gold, cryptocurrencies, and much of wiped out by sovereign defaults and expropriation. In short, chaos, war, and scorched earth.

[1]

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/04/us-v-europe-divergence/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/06/the-euro-destined-for-80-cents/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/06/the-euro-a-doomed-currency/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/06/ecb-insanity-imf-tardiness-tearing-europe-apart-yet-they-r-2-stupid-to-understand-it/

Among other notable events for the end of September 2015, are:

1. In one of those audio discussions with WA D.C. insider Hugh Downs, Hugh reminded Armstrong that the funding bill for the US government expires near that 2015.75 turn date.

2. The extension of the funding for Greece expires near that 2015.75 turn date.


What I am expecting based on Armstrong's writings is that October 2015 is when confidence in Europe's sovereign bonds starts to collapse and Draghi's QE no longer is effective in maintaining investor confidence. When investors stop believing that the core of Europe is a safe haven, they will stampede to the dollar. This process is underway on the periphery but the German DAX is still rising (which Armstrong expects to reach a bubble peak and crash on 2015.75) and German bonds are still falling (as well other core European nation sovereign bonds such as the Netherlands). October 2015 is when the lights go out on the core of Europe.

This will cause the Fed in the USA to begin to raise interest rates to counter what it sees as a huge bubble (and the opportunity to unwind the Fed's bloated QE balance sheet). This will cause the influx of the safe haven capital into the dollar to further accelerate. But this will also be killing the USA economy because USA exports will be overpriced and consumers+homeowners will be getting killed on the rising interest rates.

So then the economy will become very bad in the USA in 2016 in spite of the rising dollar and US stocks. Then in 2017, we go F.U.B.A.R. scorched earth.

I place 95% odds on this timing and outcome.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/25/so-what-was-the-ecm-september-2014-turning-point/

The media is becoming increasingly unreliable. Take this recent interview by Allen Greenspan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iup05yEKmCI

In the interview Greenspan says a number of interesting things including:






So what how does the media report this very negative interview? See for yourself
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102483369

According to CNBC "Greenspan: Stocks not too hot, despite bubble talk"

Bottom line: don't rely on the MSM for anything resembling factual reporting of economic issues.

We cannot completely pin him down on Greece because he has not given a specific date for his prediction. His exact words were.

Things like this are why I do take him seriously especially in the area of financial markets (his area of expertise). If a crisis happens as he predicts in Semptember-October of 2015 (which I believe is very possible) I will attach even more weight to his predictions.  

I did not quote him out of context but since we disagree on that I will post the entire section in question below.


Not quite following you here. Atlantic tropical storm formation like Atlantic hurricanes typically peak at the end of summer but it continues into the fall.


http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/hurricanefacts/when-and-where-do-hurricanes-o/31028

Fall runs from late September to late December which captures the latter part of the Atlantic hurricane season. However, Armstrong did not specify Atlantic hurricane season. The fall is also hurricane season in the Pacific ocean.  

When looking at the 2013 overall we see a very calm year in the Atlantic and a more mixed picture in the pacific and Indian oceans but definitely not a record breaking year.
 


2013 also had set a historic low for the number of Tornadoes the fewest tornadoes ever 15% lower than the previous record.



My take is that Armstrong simply got this one wrong. You can try to say well maybe he meant fall of some future year or maybe he meant drought instead of "violent storm like hurricanes". But the simple fact of the matter is that Armstrong said his models indicated something and that prediction turned out to be wrong. In my opinion this is incontestable based on his own writing and the subsequent facts. However, as opinions may very I am happy to let the matter rest on its merits.

The weather is very difficult to predict and getting a prediction wrong does not make him wrong about his market predictions (his area of expertise). However, it does indicate that Armstrong's models are not perfect and that it is important to critically evaluate his predictions on their merits rather than "have faith" and blindly follow them.  

CoinCube, all of us wish Armstrong's predictions were incorrect. I am less prepared than you for collapse in 2016, a pandemic by 2017-18, and war by 2017. I am suffering from a health problem that it makes it very difficult for me to accomplish any planning and action.

But wishing he is wrong won't help us.

For example, you have been trying to say he was wrong about a Greece exit from the EU. Rather Greece's problems began precisely to the day of Pi from the turn in his ECM model, and it looks like Greece will finally exit on 8.6 year point from that turn when the host (the EU) in my OP's Petri dish is dead. Armstrong is wishing his models would be wrong and Greece or any EU country would have the balls to exit and become a safe haven for capital. But he knows that his wishes can't win. He has stated we will just have to crash and burn first.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/19/does-the-model-change-its-mind/

CoinCube, this is pathetic. At least use Google before you waste my time (see tornados in Fall 2013 below).

The phase "violent storms like hurricanes" is a not a prediction for hurricanes explicitly. It is a prediction for violent storms that are of the scale of violence of hurricanes. It is quite obvious that he could not possibly be referring to Atlantic hurricanes for the Fall, because the hurricane season peaks at the tail end summer.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/


Why did you quote him out-of-context in order to obfuscate his prediction? He wrote, "This fall, we will see more chaos in weather. We are headed into a period of wild weather that will be marked by extreme swings".

You are grasping at straws and it won't help you. You had better be objective, or it is going to cost you dearly.

The shift in the weather has been extremely dramatic and chaotic with the drought in the West leading to violent Fall/winter storms in California (have you not read about the mud slides?) and much warmer and drier weather in the formerly NorthWet (Oregon and WA State). As well the ocean in the East cost was so frigid it turned into an ice slurpee. Btw, here are the tornados in California in the Fall of 2013 exactly as Armstrong predicted (I am sure you agree that a tornado is "violent like a hurricane"):

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/california-bombarded-floods-mudslides-tornado-27576526


He clearly says "We are headed into a period of wild weather".

If you had read his other blogs you would know he has been talking about an increasing volatility and extreme weather not just for Fall 2013, but going forward through this crisis period to at least 2018 (when we will also likely get a pandemic too). He was never talking specifically about the Atlantic hurricane season. You are trying to quote him out-of-context and emphasize one sentence and even the sentence you are leaning on doesn't mean what you claim it means. I hope you understand the loose analogy meaning of the word "like" in informal vernacular; "like" doesn't mean "that are".

The likely reason for the shifting weather is the North (and South) MAGNETIC pole is accelerating its move away from Siberia and towards North America!

I think you are grasping at straws here.

Armstrong was clear in his prediction.

He wrote this in March of 2013 when we were experiencing a record cold spring
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/cold-spring-2013
http://prairieecologist.com/2013/04/02/why-a-warming-climate-is-making-this-spring-so-cold-and-last-spring-so-warm/

The predicted violent storm like hurricanes, however, failed to materialize.



To argue that drought in one state somehow makes the above prediction for violent storm like hurricanes true is something of a stretch to say the least.

Blind faith in the predictions of any prognosticators (event talented ones) is a recipe for trouble. No one can predict the future with 100% accuracy.

Armstrong's area of expertise is the financial markets. It stands to reason that his predictions in this area are more likely to be accurate and his predictions in other areas weather, pandemics, Greece leaving the EU are more likely to be wrong.

What the rest of the USA may be going through from 2017 - 2024. This is how it changes. And nobody anticipates it.

Armstrong was correct on that prediction:

<--- see how drought intensifies starting from fall 2013

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/major-storm-pounds-drought-ridden-west-coast/


http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/01/ocean-turned-into-giant-slurpee/

I have been watching his predictions about DOW and gold market bottoms/highs in the past year where he predicted major low in DOW in October a week before, and if I remember correctly he even reasured that the bottom is in on the day even before we formed the first hammer, next day another hammer, then the crazy rally begin to the new highs in the DOW. He also gave warning on recent gold rally to 1300 that this is probably high. You can check and verify this stuff.
As a trader watching this in live market I can assure you M. Armstrong is the real deal - you just can't make this stuff up and be right.

Here are some other predictions from his past posts that you can watch:

- The spread between German 10 year and US 10 Year Treasuries may prove to be the trade of the century later in the year (short Germany Long US). German rates .45% v 1.84%. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/18/understanding-the-bond-bubble/
- We are most likely going to see that Phase Transition in US equities unfold with a 2017 high. Just as the 1987 high took place on the half cycle leading into the peak of the ECM in 1989, this time we are likely to perhaps see the US share market peak on the half cycle after 2015.75. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/02/15/g20-leaders-plead-with-fed-not-to-raise-rates/
- A month-end closing above 17970 will warn that we can still see an early March high. That may then lead to a retest of support going into June. A low at that time will be very constructive for the longer term looking into 2017. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/02/17/the-dow-outlook/

I always come back to read the fascinating discussion. There are some great conversations going on.

As I was researching Armstrong- I am neither convinced nor entirely skeptical of him at this point (I do agree with him on many things) I did come across this article (I only share it as I know that some people may be interested in the other side of the argument) I'm actually thinking of buying his latest DVD, as it could be interesting to actually see him present in-depth and make some notes and witness the unfolding of the predictions one way or another myself.

CXO Advisory on Martin Armstrong

amazing thread, has disturbed my sleep for a few days now..

...

iamback and CoinCube

Armstrong could be among the very best of guys who predict, but even with 30,000 + variables in his supercomputers, that will not cover all facors "out there", nor (especially) some of the connections and influences among them.

Weather is a great example.  Much more complex than the actual average TV viewer could imagine.

OTOH, if I were any of you, if I had to bet, I would bet with Armstrong vs. a Bearing Buyer.

I got out of the prediction game long ago, except for noticing important trends, like "Economic Devastation".  Devastation, likely to hit a country near yours soon.  When?  Ahh..., beats me!  But, the end feels near, it certainly gets nearer each new day.

iamback we do not see eye to eye on Mr. Armstrong. As I argued earlier.



To the above criticism I would add that I have personally seen Armstrong significantly edit his old writings when his initial writing made him look bad. Specifically he erroneous reported as fact that Citigroup was moving its headquarters from New York to the U.S. Capitol building.



My genuine impression of Mr. Armstrong is that he is someone who has predicted, probably correctly, that 2015-2016 is the date when the central banks finally start to lose control and that he is planning to leverage that prediction into $$$ by selling terrified investors (very expensive) investment advice.

However, I am keeping an eye on his predictions.
1) Economy turning down at the end of 2015 and
2) Pandemic in 2018
3) Any others?

I think he is right about #1 and I do not believe #2 is possible to predict unless you are directly involved or communicating with individuals introducing a pandemic. If both predictions #1 and #2 happen on schedule I will revise my opinion accordingly.

Congo wins!