Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 250. (Read 647183 times)

Well since I am by far the most voluminous poster of dense walls of verbiage on these forums for the past 3.5 years, we have evidence that I am well suited for an executive-level position:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ability-to-generate-e-mails-key-indicator-of-stamina-medical-study-says

And I did that while ill! Just wait until I am cured, y'all ain't seen nuttin' yet.

Well that is if you believe The New Yorker isn't full of delusional bullshit:

https://thescene.com/watch/thenewyorker/the-new-yorker-festival-sarah-silverman-and-andy-borowitz-tackle-trump?source=player_scene_logo

Well since I am by far the most voluminous poster of dense walls of
verbiage on these forums for the past 3.5 years, we have evidence that I
am well suited for an executive-level position:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ability-to-generate-e-mails-key-indicator-of-stamina-medical-study-says

And I did that while ill! Just wait until I am cured, y'all ain't seen
nuttin' yet.

Well that is if you believe The New Yorker isn't full of delusional bullshit:

https://thescene.com/watch/thenewyorker/the-new-yorker-festival-sarah-silverman-and-andy-borowitz-tackle-trump?source=player_scene_logo

[https://i.imgur.com/SkAlHzR.png](http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/)
 <-- image also attached

If you want to see corruption at the extreme, Hillary could legally pardon herself.

The Quest to Create World War III

Whatever the United States and United Nations can do to isolate Russia they seem to be doing without any regard for the consequences. Saudi Arabia retained its seat on the UN Human Rights Council while Russia was kicked off and Croatia replaced them. When it comes to human rights, one must ask, who made this judgement? All they seem to be doing is trying desperately to isolate Russia and to provoke war instead of peace.

What is your point exactly?

I am so glad what I have a functioning brain stem. I can't imagine what it must be like to be so intellectually handicapped.

You obviously are unable to comprehend that the appraisal of the stability and longevity of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE that we make is based on how long we will anticipate holding that $100 bill before we spend it.

Obviously my point has been (in numerous responses to you before this one) that when PUBLIC CONFIDENCE is deemed to be lower (or less stable) by the public, then the government is forced to institute other measures to restore sufficient confidence in the currency, such as by lowering the seignoriage (i.e. increasing the metal content value) and other measures.

Please this point is irrefutable and has been made by myself over and over again in response to your numerous myopic comments. It you still can't get it, there is no hope of you ever getting the irrefutable point.

I have been very patient and respectful to you, but there is a limit. You need to try harder to think, before you post. You are obviously not

I disagree that that trust in the case of hard currencies has anything to do with authorities and the stamp on the metal they make...

And so what? This doesn't in the least mean that people always had, have or will have that public confidence in the stamp you are talking about.

I am sorry because you speaking bat shit gibberish now.

You accept a $100 bill because you believe that the PUBLIC CONFIDENCE is high and that everyone will honor the $100 stamped value.

You are trying to hide the lack of substance behind verbiage. Public confidence is not a thing that exists by itself. It is an aggregate of personal attitudes and preferences ("personal value system" as you called it) toward something (in that case, the stamp, as you put it). You won't make me believe that people trusted the stamp when it changed a few times during their lifetime. In the early history of money the stamp meant essentially nothing. In Europe, people didn't use gold coins in everyday life. Such coins were used for paying taxes and for hoarding (by gold content and totally irrespective of the stamp minted on them). In other words, the public confidence in the stamp was negligible beside the public confidence in the metal itself...

Otherwise, rulers of all sorts might have safely used fiat instead of precious metals

...

deisik

You put that very well re cherry picking dates, I kept my remark brief just by showing 2016 and the 16 or so years before as examples.  Nice graph!  The inflation-adjusted figures are nice to see as well.

Cherry pickers take note, even looking at long-ish time frames one could make weird arguments like that the inflation adjusted price of gold was LOWER in 2003 than in 1934.

Yet the macro-trend is that gold is up nicely vs. dollars since 1913.

Also note how the nominal price of gold has performed extremely well vs. the US$ in that the dollar has lost 97% or so in gold terms...

Very instructive graph, thanks for posting it

You continue to conflate personal value system with PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp. A person will weigh the risk of lost of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp against their personal assessment of the metal value, and the fact that PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the currency is required for it to be a liquid unit-of-exchange (i.e. a personal assessment of metal value is relatively illiquid if there is not State endorsed PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp). This is why when PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp was peaking, the coins were able to be heavily debased but then as emperors were disposed every decade or less then it was necessary to increase the metal content in order to gain enough PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

The problem is that the very metal these chunks were minted from was considered money (in whatever form and state), not the stamp impressed on it as you and your buddy Armstrong erroneously claim. In other words, people trusted the metal, not the stamp.

I have already told that people paid a relatively small fee (several percentages) for having royal coins minted from the gold or other coins they had brought to the royal mint. And that fee was the real "market" price of the stamp. This can be very easily explained by the fact that every king or emperor had been minting and accepting as legal tender his own coin, so the stamp itself cost virtually nothing. For the simple reason that rulers back then had been killed, assassinated, and overthrown every other day. The invaders that took over the Roman Empire fit into this scheme of things perfectly...

Just imagine what your 100 dollar bill would be worth if it had been outlawed every time a new POTUS came to power

They debased the coins in the Roman Empire and got away with it up to a point, because people trust the stamp and the strength of emperor stamped on it. But eventually the emperors were being overthrown every decade, so the stamp had to be backed by more metal value in order to bring back the confidence.

Also modern banking and paper money had not yet been invented in Western Europe yet, and I believe not until Florence, Italy if I am not mistake. China had already invented paper money though.

So if the government is perceived to be strong and stable (e.g. the USA since at least WW2), then that government can debase the hell out of their fiat, which is exactly what the Fed has been doing with the world's reserve currency and formerly strongest military power.



No one stopped using FRNs and zinc pennies and quarters. The USA government is still perceived to be strong. But we are witnessing the fall of the USA empire now. Exactly as predicted by Armstrong's model. In fact, Armstrong's model for the US empire peaked on the day Edward Snowden made his final move of no return for releasing the NSA exposé.

Question for you.

What is the most ideal money system?

In the now Id suppose this would be the system with the most liquidity and fungibility.

However if one was to theorize what the most ideal money system was, what would it

Thinking towards your better then steemit line of thought. The next generation social network would do well to focus on these things. Allow the economy(trade of goods and services) to flourish freely. Decentralize food preparation and distribution. (Ie: uber/air bnb like: you cook some extra food and use a local service to sell and deliver it, build a rep, etc). Decentralize security, neighborhood militia, cop liasons, neighborhood watch, etc. Decentralize transportation, uber.

(Decentralization in this case, still uses a network as the centralizer, however it allows regular people to participate. Ie: gives the purpose..a job, when no ones hiring)

COMMENT: Marty, the gold bugs are at it again desperately trying to say you are wrong as always and just misrepresent whatever they can. They acknowledge you called for new highs in the Dow, but claim even that was not until 2013 when I read about your forecast back in 2011 in Barrons. They seem to be so desperate to try to prove you wrong yet they have never been right. They do not understand anything about markets. You are correct. They are as bad as politicians preaching the same nonsense and then misrepresent your record to tell lies. They do not mention you said gold would rally up to 1362 and back down. Unbelievable how dishonest and unethical these people are especially ——–.


Thank you for being straight up

KW

REPLY: The gold promoters have a single agenda and are not students of the market. They are just wrong on their theories, and you are right, they are like politicians. Every election is vote for me for change. It seems like vote for me because I have been less wrong than my opponent. They cast everything into right or wrong and shun trying to learn anything the markets are telling us. They cannot learn because they have a predetermined fixed image of how the world should be. They only focus on gold and cannot see what else exists in the world or how everything is connected. They function the same as central bankers who try to talk markets up by giving false impressions of reality. It’s a shame how many people they ruin because they are fixed on one scenario (And yes, the forecast for new a high was made at the bottom of the ECM back in 2011 when Barrons reported that forecast). The lift-off for the Dow to move to new highs with our first target 18500 could NEVER have been correct if gold did not also peak in 2011 and turn down. They have fought that decline all the way.

Look. We need fools on the other side of reality in order to trade against them. They are the fuel that makes markets move. It’s a shame how many people lost money lining the pockets of bankers because of these people. Nothing happened on October 1 when the world was coming to an end because the IMF included the Chinese yuan in the SDR. They thought that Shanghai would start trading “real” gold, not paper, and that New York would have collapsed by now. Their scenarios are childish and absurd to say the least. They have no respect for people. They are like Hillary: it’s all about them.

This is a battle of us against them. They are on the side of the establishment, preaching the same story that made the bankers rich and selling into every high they chased up the flagpole

Per my prior comment post, Rothschilds is forcing the Establishment (politicians) in the USA to double-down on their corruption to avoid prison and sustain their power:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/never-ending-conflict-of-interest/

So fabricating a war with Russia is still on the table to prevent Trump from becoming Prez.

...

I don't know what to think about Bitcoin.  Yes, it has made another nice move, it's around $740 now, up a nice meaty 14% or so in a week or so.

But, as the constant bickering of TPTB in Bitcoinistan continues to bother me (hard forks, etc.), well I don't know if I trust the system to remain intact.  Granted, my use of BTC has been "dual-use" (spend some, throw some into cold storage -- insulates me a bit vs. the high premiums I have had to pay at BTC ATMs).  Nonetheless, the risky-seeming & perhaps rickety BTC system gives me some willies...  

Since I am not a programmer nor know much about Bitcoin's internal workings, perhaps my concerns are unwarranted.

They will play you as well, because you'll be the one who sells too early when the price rocket goes into a phase transition run to ATHs. They will eventually do that after they done shaking weak hands out. Your stance can be characterized as another form of weak hand because of selling too soon into a bull run.

The first bubble to $1200 in 2013 was the first hump of the typical new technology invesment. The second major hump is the big enchilada and you should never sell except possibly to trade to altcoins to increase your BTC, if you are so inclined and are astute at such speculation.

Maybe somebody should tell him we are end 2016 and not end 2015. He seems a bit lost  

The Rothschilds apparently like gold a lot.  It is not at all clear how much they own, but is reputed to be substantial...  Where else are you going to invest your $billion$ after you have plenty of castles and vineyards?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family

It would not surprise me at all if the Rs own many tonnes of gold.

Do the Rothschilds know something you don't?  

That family is the classic example of owning lots of quietly held gold, passed down through the generations (other wealthy Europeans have been doing the same for centuries).

Well, the US did peak in the 1950's, so I guess his model was only 70 years off.