Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 157. (Read 647054 times)

Much appreciated guys. now his blog updates make more sense (thought broad top 2015.75 was the prediction)

...

I am re-reading N N Taleb's book Fooled by Randomness.  Taleb is probably an even more influential thinker than Martin Armstrong.  The book is the one he wrote before writing his most famous book: The Black Swan.  He is the guy who made the "Black Swan" idea famous.

His main theme in the book I am reading again is that random events are MUCH more important than is generally credited, even by "experts".

Drop by my thread about Taleb's book and feel free to discuss his ideas as many of you have done re Martin Armstrong.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4952382.new#new


/end threadjack

The case for either metal is quite simple, they require no maintenance to continue in value.   Where as BTC has a network that must be maintained,  I dont especially see the two standards of metal and electronic transfer as being in competition.   If BTC achieves qualities gold will never have then they can both appreciate at the same time.    
Also for gold there is qualities it has that are not replaced by the existence of BTC.   It is a unique element, there is no immediate argument between the two as they do different things, I see both retaining value going foward.  The main issue is that neither is being used commonly.

When US dollar standard fails as it appears it must for the world to carry on untroubled then I would never assume the USD will fall perfectly intact never a flaw until it hits the ground completely unused.    Whats far more likely is the global reserve of using just one nation for world trade is fractured, the idea itself is a failure and in that process the value held by USD distributes to many different types of monetary transfer.   So we'll have alternate FIAT standards with presumably proper interest being paid, we'll have value placed in metal and commodities and we'll very likely have some value attributed to online blockchains.    There will be paper currency partially backed by gold, thats just historic reversion and it worked previously no reason to doubt it wont be tried and tested most likely working similarly in future.

 I dont believe any one standard will replace USD as a duplicate in size and form as it transacts daily right now

Very solid points!!!

Gold and Silver's potential to be a viable medimum of exchange, is only decreasing as the time goes by. This also has an effect on its use as a store of value, as the value will continue to go down.

Now, if society were to completely fall apart, to the point that government has little control of a few select cities, and almost zero control outside of them, sure, gold and silver would become more relevant, but not by a whole hell of a lot, and the gap in value between gold/silver and crypto would increase exponentially in such a scenario.

So then in what conditions would gold/silver be a good choice?

Now that crypto is here, I would think everyone that has even a limited grasp on the dynamics of crypto, would see this as a no brainer?

Im really strugging to see where Im wrong here? Especially after reading Shelbys linked post. Whats the argument after reading that?

Im not trying to be a smartass when I say, that Im surprised that people think that gold/silver would even compare to cryptos potential in any case!

Many thought silver would take off because of its use in industry, but we see what we got from that.

STT, Shelby wanted me to ask you to do some reading because he strongly disagrees with you about gold:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.44422077

You can't just do Technical and/or Fundamental analysis. If you understand how the world works, another market can affect the market you are analyzing. So your analysis even though it's correct, will be affected by an outside force sooner or later. You just need to keep that in mind, and never marry your trade. I don't have any answers, I just keep eyes out and see what's happening and follow people to see if they're right or not and ignore those that's wrong, and keep following those that's more right.

due to ideal money bitcoin cannot be changed.. you have to work around it while preserving security for the usecase.

Long term its efficiency which will grant gold or BTC the higher price but it cant be said easily as the Bitcoin protocol can be changed for some efficient use.   At present BTC is too expensive in its costs I think. 

Stronger dollar in 2018 has hurt gold and BTC also I think, both seem well contained and out of favour.  The dollar declined for most of 2017 and I think was part of the story for the large rise in Bitcoin and its momentum to end the year so well.   It could do this again but right now Dollar is still climbing while appearing strong, I'm not sure I can be bullish BTC until USD does crest expectations and start a negative trend again. 

technicals rely on subjective metric that narrates a herd mentality that it is likely to reproduce outputs from similar inputs. In the end technicals may or may not allow you to sell at 19k but those same people will fundamentally be aligned to buy back because of what bitcoin represents. The target market is so large that risk reward points to holding at any of these levels which is a fundamental move rather than technical.

In other words if you want to get technical... measure the amount of people selling out to cash and back to their bank accounts to measure if a trend is dead. I guess you wont find much.. this is again a function of Ideal Money.

Gold was asymptotically ideal.. fiat was more ideal and crypto is more ideal. The actual term Ideal Money is midleading its more of an idea of a classification in general terms and not specific description of what exists or doesnt exist

thats true for some types of macro events because humans generally affected by the same ratios that govern nature and thus likely to attritube major decisions to those events however fundamentally in our lifetime it matters not because we are only in our work lives for about 30 yrs and thus macro events if you miss one will likely cost you your entire position you have built up assuming perfect game theory on your part which we know is next to impossible. If that is your gameplan better to find an edge like arbitrage and apply the same principles with an expectancy calculation and let a.bot run. Fundamentals are generally hands off and for the most part get you ahead alot further than technicals do for anything worthwhile.

See me vs roach. He has his points technically but fundamentally he was wrong because he doesnt understand Ideal Money by Nash nor did he read szabos post I told him to. Therefor even though sample size is small it is conclusive the more you look around that fundamentals trump technicals no matter how lucrative technicals may look. Livermore would agree with this post.

fundamentals always matters more. technicals is for traders fundamentals for investors.

He's got good points, but I think sometimes he's too harsh on Armstrong. Even great people sometimes don't understand a new concept straight away.

Shelby refuted Armstrong (and he emails all his refutations to Armstrong):

https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-goldgoatsnguns-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-bitcoin-rises-because-land-is-becoming-worthless-20180812t142803478z

ofc i told roach yrs ago that when btc beats gold price it will be for long term instead he sold at $600.

yesterday the selloff in pms lined up with rise in crypto. This is ideal money at work.

Today's article is very interesting: Gold & the Changing Fundamentals
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/precious-metals/gold/gold-the-changing-fundamentals/

I'm reading it, and it's screaming out bitcoin/crypto as gold's replacement.
Question: Can you express any opinion on gold?
Answer from Armstrong:
... We have to understand one thing. The younger generations do not see gold as money as do the aging generation. The older generations remember being taught that is school and the days of the gold standard. The younger generation does not even bother with paper money and pays with their cell phones. This is raising the question of whether gold will remain as a safe-haven instrument in the future if the younger generation does not even consider gold suitable for anything other than a trinket ...

Im so interested about Armstrong discussion about here life story but I am not so satistfied the articles which is any post in the forum and hoping it will be opened so that all we know the real life of Armstrong discussion.

Gold never changes, I thought that was the point to holding it.  The perceptions of it might change and obviously its changing as a ratio to various FIAT standards and debt vs growth and all sorts.   The gold itself cant ever be argued to have changed though, even production of gold rising is only mirroring global population growth and so rising demand potential also.


The more dangerous ground is on holding industrial metals like silver or even platinum because its used in car production and supply and demand is less clear.  I would guess even those two will appreciate over many years vs dollar


The reason for strong dollar now is the tariffs and trade barriers.    Dollar is a heavily speculated currency, its not in reaction to trade done as obviously USA runs a trade deficit and the money is being used globally as a reserve.   The point with paper related to politics is that it is subject to great changes, right now the Dollar rises because its seen as a safe haven but the perception can miss the point that dollar has grown weaker.    Price doesn't dictate fundamentals, it can run opposite and everyone here knows this already but none of us want to fight the market on it.    Its still going to happen that dollar weakness eventually is apparent.

People always end up comparing gold with Bitcoin because they are both headless entities.   They have no defence or campaign to champion their positives.     Any actual dynamic demonstrated comes via a free market itself, its a slow method like water on stone its effect is gradual but as natural as it gets. I have no idea when Gold comes good but I really have no doubt on it because of what I see as temporary effects.

Ultimately trading tariffs, sanctions, barriers, etc as an effect make USA poorer, as a nation its a net importer even in energy I think that might be true.   Either production must increase dramatically within USA or its freely trading nation partners, if that does not occur then costs rise.  If costs rise then the nation is poorer, productivity is lower and growth is not there, lots of knock on effects.   The sum total is not going to be a stronger dollar then, thats the fundamentals I think but right this moment we have trading reacting by raising Dollar.  

Its perfectly fine then if gold falls but theres no real negative I see in gold for its price being lower.   Anyone who does use or hold gold should aim to buy every year, sell only when they aim to sell many of their assets I guess.  Its slow, heavy, inert and never says a word in its defence it requires great perception then is how I see this situation.   Dollar on the other hand has billions speaking its book as if it were gospel when its only a paper promise paid by politics not trade.

@AnonyMint communicated to me, “Where are you now @realr0ach, haha:”

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/precious-metals/gold/gold-the-changing-fundamentals/

It is ironic that the conditions setting up today were also the case in 1927. The Fed back then lowered U.S. rates to try to deflect the capital inflows to help bailout Europe. The markets eventually backfired and capital shifted. It poured into the USA and doubled the U.S. share market, despite doubling interest rates to try to prevent the crisis they helped to create. This all led to the 1931 sovereign debt crisis and those economic declines resulted in political chaos. In 1933, FDR came to power, but so did Hitler and Mao. That was all made possible because of the collapse in government debt. We are in the very same position today as the Fed is surrendering domestic policy objectives for international concerns.

Would be interesting to know his opinion about the Bitcoin movement and about the future of cryptocurrency itself how would we be integrated in the worldwide system of economy and currency.