Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 287. (Read 647196 times)
Someome should annotate a google chart of djia with mas major predictions and see how they lineup with turning points or lack thereof
Here are MA writings from the past for anyone who have doubts. You can compare his statements with historical charts: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/
The reserves are being depleted by rich corrupt Chinese moving their funds offshore to escape from the coming Yuan/USD exchange rate collapse. And also to seek a safe haven from the witch hunt underway against corruption in China.
Confused wrong assumptions (motivated by a blinding, preordained bias) and inability to span and correlate reading comprehension from start to end of a document.
Here (August 28th, 2009) http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2012/03/will-gold-reach-5000-809.pdf MA says “It is coming into its own and is still poised to rally to at least test the $3,000 level if not much higher.” And “Government has promised the moon, and can no more keep their promise that Santa really eats the cookies. When there is no one who buys the US debt, that is when the ceiling will fall. We will see this most likely after 2010 and it appears the end may be 2015-2016. A 21 year bull market in stocks points to 2015 and a 17.2 year high in gold points to 2016. This does not negate the decline after Labor Day back into 2010 that seems to be shaping up”.
Why am I the only one capable of reading the sources sloanf cites and pointing out that he is lying and cherry-picking quotes out-of-context every damn time!
Here one last time and I better never ever read anyone agreeing with sloanf unless they've carefully analyzed the cited MA document.
I brought this report for you to read a month ago and quoted the link numerous times since then and yet this is the first time you actually read it. This proves that in all your prior responses you were trying to refute something that you did not even read. No wonder you have failed in all of your attempts.
But once you finally read it, let’s find out how you have failed this time.
Here (August 28th, 2009) http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2012/03/will-gold-reach-5000-809.pdf MA says “It is coming into its own and is still poised to rally to at least test the $3,000 level if not much higher.” And “Government has promised the moon, and can no more keep their promise that Santa really eats the cookies. When there is no one who buys the US debt, that is when the ceiling will fall. We will see this most likely after 2010 and it appears the end may be 2015-2016. A 21 year bull market in stocks points to 2015 and a 17.2 year high in gold points to 2016. This does not negate the decline after Labor Day back into 2010 that seems to be shaping up”.
turned out to be totally wrong and that’s why I quoted it. Therefore, you should refute that part if you really believe you will be able to defend your stupidity. Before you write your usual bragging response how you’re the only one on the planet who understands MA and other crap along those lines, read again. This part is standalone regardless of context and has no conditions, scenarios or any other usual ass covering bs.
Quote
Quote from: http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2012/03/will-gold-reach-5000-809.pdf#page=15
This represents still a plain old normal technical move with nothing that would reflect a
meltdown. It is breaking this overhead resistance where it becomes support that we
enter the "danger zone" of a true meltdown in Public Confidence.
Most of the projected resistance from the major low back in 1999, shows various
targets from $1,700 to $2,750. However, if gold exceeds this level and it too forms
the subsequent support, now we are looking at the
$3,500 to $5,000 target zone.
This is where we see the potential for Gold is a true economic meltdown of
Confidence. In the next leg down into 2011...
meltdown. It is breaking this overhead resistance where it becomes support that we
enter the "danger zone" of a true meltdown in Public Confidence.
Most of the projected resistance from the major low back in 1999, shows various
targets from $1,700 to $2,750. However, if gold exceeds this level and it too forms
the subsequent support, now we are looking at the
$3,500 to $5,000 target zone.
This is where we see the potential for Gold is a true economic meltdown of
Confidence. In the next leg down into 2011...
Again this is the same unlikely alternative scenario he discussed in the March 2011 document, which explained less likely.
And again he reiterated the downturn to 2011 for the ECM (i.e. the public economy confidence since we are in the 51.6 year Public wave overall) which means a rising gold (private economy or loss in confidence in public econony) through the turn date shown on the chart (page 17) for the ECM of 2011.45 which is precisely what transpired!
sloanf is digging his own grave with his citations of MA.
And note the 2009 document above was written while MA was in prison and didn't have access to Socrates.
Where does it say “unlikely alternative scenario” or anything about probabilities? It is your skewed interpretation which nobody needs or asks for.
Did gold exceed $1,700? Yes, on a daily\weekly\monthly basis and not just once. Did we see $3,500-$5,000. No. So even his “if-then” trick didn’t help MA not to fail his forecast as usual.
You wanted to refute something without even knowing about that something and failed. Then you read about that something, tried to refute again, but did exactly the opposite. Stupidity has no bottom, so you always have a space to fall further. Try again.
Here (August 28th, 2009) http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2012/03/will-gold-reach-5000-809.pdf MA says “It is coming into its own and is still poised to rally to at least test the $3,000 level if not much higher.” And “Government has promised the moon, and can no more keep their promise that Santa really eats the cookies. When there is no one who buys the US debt, that is when the ceiling will fall. We will see this most likely after 2010 and it appears the end may be 2015-2016. A 21 year bull market in stocks points to 2015 and a 17.2 year high in gold points to 2016. This does not negate the decline after Labor Day back into 2010 that seems to be shaping up”.
Why am I the only one capable of reading the sources sloanf cites and pointing out that he is lying and cherry-picking quotes out-of-context every damn time!
Here one last time and I better never ever read anyone agreeing with sloanf unless they've carefully analyzed the cited MA document.
This represents still a plain old normal technical move with nothing that would reflect a
meltdown. It is breaking this overhead resistance where it becomes support that we
enter the "danger zone" of a true meltdown in Public Confidence.
Most of the projected resistance from the major low back in 1999, shows various
targets from $1,700 to $2,750. However, if gold exceeds this level and it too forms
the subsequent support, now we are looking at the
$3,500 to $5,000 target zone.
This is where we see the potential for Gold is a true economic meltdown of
Confidence. In the next leg down into 2011...
meltdown. It is breaking this overhead resistance where it becomes support that we
enter the "danger zone" of a true meltdown in Public Confidence.
Most of the projected resistance from the major low back in 1999, shows various
targets from $1,700 to $2,750. However, if gold exceeds this level and it too forms
the subsequent support, now we are looking at the
$3,500 to $5,000 target zone.
This is where we see the potential for Gold is a true economic meltdown of
Confidence. In the next leg down into 2011...
Again this is the same unlikely alternative scenario he discussed in the March 2011 document, which explained less likely.
And again he reiterated the downturn to 2011 for the ECM (i.e. the public economy confidence since we are in the 51.6 year Public wave overall) which means a rising gold (private economy or loss in confidence in public econony) through the turn date shown on the chart (page 17) for the ECM of 2011.45 which is precisely what transpired!
sloanf is digging his own grave with his citations of MA.
And note the 2009 document above was written while MA was in prison and didn't have access to Socrates.
Sometimes I trade GDX, but I don't trade gold, however this post at https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/more-delusional-gold-theories/ is very interesting to me. Terms of gold I think he is consistent with what he has been saying as much as I can remember his posts on the subject.
Which is even more interesting and we talk about it a lot in this forum, Armstrong says: "we are moving to electronic money; not bullion. Even if this wild theory were correct, government would confiscate the gold and make it a criminal act to even own it so they make the profit – not you. That’s what Roosevelt did; confiscated first and revalued second."
Of course Armstrong is not talking about crypto currency, but electronic FIAT (and sorry for mentioning this, I know the regulars of this thread understand what he is talking about and I just clarify it before the uninformed trolls get excited that he talks about Bitcoin), but perhaps such government actions will provide a great opportunity for crypto currencies to exists as a store of value? Or will the government put crypto currencies in the same category as gold and make it simply illegal and ban it on protocol, ISP, OS (in case of proprietary operating systems such as MS and Apple) level so using a community driven, fully decentralized, P2P digital currencies will be a criminal offence? Not sure, but interesting times ahead.
Which is even more interesting and we talk about it a lot in this forum, Armstrong says: "we are moving to electronic money; not bullion. Even if this wild theory were correct, government would confiscate the gold and make it a criminal act to even own it so they make the profit – not you. That’s what Roosevelt did; confiscated first and revalued second."
Of course Armstrong is not talking about crypto currency, but electronic FIAT (and sorry for mentioning this, I know the regulars of this thread understand what he is talking about and I just clarify it before the uninformed trolls get excited that he talks about Bitcoin), but perhaps such government actions will provide a great opportunity for crypto currencies to exists as a store of value? Or will the government put crypto currencies in the same category as gold and make it simply illegal and ban it on protocol, ISP, OS (in case of proprietary operating systems such as MS and Apple) level so using a community driven, fully decentralized, P2P digital currencies will be a criminal offence? Not sure, but interesting times ahead.
So basically MA does scenario analysis, like everyone else in the finance industry.
Yup. But has mountains of data going back to the start of human civilization and an A.I. computer model constructed from that data, which enables him to pull order out-of-chaos that other analysts see only as noise or a random walk.
It's not because you and him see an order that this is an order with any predictive potential. An order that contains predictive potential, if there is any, can be orders of magnitude more complex than the model he came with, and far beyond the reach of his current modeling ability.
You can see pattern in any random sequence, but those are often meaningless patterns. Alternatively, you can see meaningful (ie. with predictive value) patterns which give you only a tiny forecasting edge because you don't understand the next order on the scale of complexity. And the more you try to forecast long term, the more it's important to have an exhaustive comprehension of the relations between things and phenomenon.
In other words, maybe (and probably, imho) he doesn't have solved the mystery of the world yet.
TPTB, I kno that riles you up. Peace.
Though I gotta say, I understand the time/price correlation, as I wrote in the middle of that post
"TPTB_needs_war will say though, that time and price need to line up together for a signal to be elected. Before that it is a matter of options. Not too hard to understand".
All I was meaning to say is I can accept where & why he takes MA's writings the way he does, and why I wrote adjust as the landscape changes. But, like politics and religion, its near impossible to change someones mind and Sf came to the thread already decided.
Though I gotta say, I understand the time/price correlation, as I wrote in the middle of that post
"TPTB_needs_war will say though, that time and price need to line up together for a signal to be elected. Before that it is a matter of options. Not too hard to understand".
All I was meaning to say is I can accept where & why he takes MA's writings the way he does, and why I wrote adjust as the landscape changes. But, like politics and religion, its near impossible to change someones mind and Sf came to the thread already decided.
So basically MA does scenario analysis, like everyone else in the finance industry.
Yup. But has mountains of data going back to the start of human civilization and an A.I. computer model constructed from that data, which enables him to pull order out-of-chaos that other analysts see only as noise or a random walk.
I repeat this quote again:
Please note (and also in reference to thaaanos' post below) that no one can know what is the noise and what is the data, because in unbounded entropy no one can know a total ordering and predict the future precisely enough to know how to organize the mutations. Without friction and a finite speed-of-light, 0 entropy and infinite entropy would be indistinguishable and the game collapses. Martin Armstrong can find higher dimensions of order (repeating cycle patterns) in the chaotic interaction of a plurality of interacting cycles (Butterfly effects) which has been named the Strange Attractor in Lorentz's famous and widely respected Chaos Theory. So he can determine timings on repeating cycles, but he can't tell nature which mutations which adapt to the future because he can't know all the details about the future. He can see one partial ordering which is more informational than than those who don't compile and multi-dimensionally inspect as much data as he claims.
Fine, no argument from me there, that gold has not hit 3,000 and US debt is still good. I have no issue with the call not being 100% spot on, as I have said before - every economist I follow gets somethings wrong. They then adjust as the landscape changes.
MA did not get anything wrong. Both of you are taking those words out-of-context. I am not going to explain it again, I already did upthread. None of you are comprehending at all MA's scenarios and models. That is not his fault. You all needed me to interpret it for you all from the very start. MA's IQ and models are beyond the comprehension of weekend warriors who try to dip in once in a while. Spend some years studying then maybe you will understand. As I said, I didn't understand MA at all when I first started reading him when he was writing from prison. It took some years for it to gel. And I have tried to explain upthread recently, but apparently guys can't comprehend what I am saying about MA presents all the scenarios and then says which price points have to be hit to elect each scenario. These are "what if" statements, and of the scenario choices some have much lower probability. From my upthread refutation of sloanf, MA's preferred scenario (predicted in March 2011) was for gold to rise above $1,500, go into a PHASE TRANSITION immediately (which it did to $1,900) and then collapse into a low by 2015.75 which it did at $1050.
He also stated other possible scenarios and what had to transpire to make it happen. These lower probability scenarios were not elected by the market, as he expected.
tabnloz if you feed that troll again and allow me to see what you have quoted from him, then you will go on my shit list and I will ignore you. I am sick and tired of the trolling. Unfair or not, take it or leave it.
Again sloanf will hide under a rock later this year as Armstrong's predictions play out yet again as they always do. Sloanf doesn't have a clue about how international capital flows work and why. He doesn't understand CONFIDENCE and how it breaks in a waterfall collapse. Etc.
Fine, no argument from me there, that gold has not hit 3,000 and US debt is still good. I have no issue with the call not being 100% spot on, as I have said before - every economist I follow gets somethings wrong. They then adjust as the landscape changes.
MA did not get anything wrong. Both of you are taking those words out-of-context. I am not going to explain it again, I already did upthread. None of you are comprehending at all MA's scenarios and models. That is not his fault. You all needed me to interpret it for you all from the very start. MA's IQ and models are beyond the comprehension of weekend warriors who try to dip in once in a while. Spend some years studying then maybe you will understand. As I said, I didn't understand MA at all when I first started reading him when he was writing from prison. It took some years for it to gel. And I have tried to explain upthread recently, but apparently guys can't comprehend what I am saying about MA presents all the scenarios and then says which price points have to be hit to elect each scenario. These are "what if" statements, and of the scenario choices some have much lower probability. From my upthread refutation of sloanf, MA's preferred scenario (predicted in March 2011) was for gold to rise above $1,500, go into a PHASE TRANSITION immediately (which it did to $1,900) and then collapse into a low by 2015.75 which it did at $1050.
He also stated other possible scenarios and what had to transpire to make it happen. These lower probability scenarios were not elected by the market, as he expected.
tabnloz if you feed that troll again and allow me to see what you have quoted from him, then you will go on my shit list and I will ignore you. I am sick and tired of the trolling. Unfair or not, take it or leave it.
Again sloanf will hide under a rock later this year as Armstrong's predictions play out yet again as they always do. Sloanf doesn't have a clue about how international capital flows work and why. He doesn't understand CONFIDENCE and how it breaks in a waterfall collapse. Etc.
Having a look around the interwebs, there are few different people who have tweaked Armstrong's model. One group, from this 1999 article, sees 4 trends differing cycles and focuses on the 8.6 and 17.2 year cycles.
Bringing our long-term analysis into the modern United States spectrum, if one measures the days between the founding of our nation on July 4, 1776 with the Declaration of Independence and the 2000 high in U.S. equities, exactly thirteen 17.2 year periods transpired as of February 23, 2000 -- a date that fell almost perfectly between the January 2000 high in the Dow Jones Industrials and the late March high in the NASDAQ and S&P 500.
Interesting thing comes in the next 17.2 year cycle; first 8.6 years ends on Feb 23 2000 - Sep 29 2008.
Largest single day point drop in DJIA history.
http://www.sandspring.com/articles/pi2.html
Bringing our long-term analysis into the modern United States spectrum, if one measures the days between the founding of our nation on July 4, 1776 with the Declaration of Independence and the 2000 high in U.S. equities, exactly thirteen 17.2 year periods transpired as of February 23, 2000 -- a date that fell almost perfectly between the January 2000 high in the Dow Jones Industrials and the late March high in the NASDAQ and S&P 500.
Interesting thing comes in the next 17.2 year cycle; first 8.6 years ends on Feb 23 2000 - Sep 29 2008.
Largest single day point drop in DJIA history.
http://www.sandspring.com/articles/pi2.html
Look, it's very simple. Initially, his call on 2015.75 aka Big Bang was this:
Here (August 28th, 2009) http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2012/03/will-gold-reach-5000-809.pdf MA says “It is coming into its own and is still poised to rally to at least test the $3,000 level if not much higher.” And “Government has promised the moon, and can no more keep their promise that Santa really eats the cookies. When there is no one who buys the US debt, that is when the ceiling will fall. We will see this most likely after 2010 and it appears the end may be 2015-2016. A 21 year bull market in stocks points to 2015 and a 17.2 year high in gold points to 2016. This does not negate the decline after Labor Day back into 2010 that seems to be shaping up”.
Quote
I.e. by 2015\2016 the US debt should have collapsed, right? Did that happen? No.
Then he changed his call by saying that 2015.75 should be the peak in the US government bonds. Did that happen? No. As you told us the bonds are still rising and rising globally. So tell me, how did you arrive at the conclusion that his prediction was correct?
Now, as for "the bond market suffers some kind of crisis and money flees into the US stock market" on which MA based his prediction 32K-40K on the Dow. Why do you take this as a gospel truth? Just take a look what happened last year when bonds declined significantly. Did those funds moved into the Dow? No. Equities were down as well. And finally look at what is going on in Japan https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IRLTLT01JPM156N. The Japanese government bonds have been rising with no collapse and sudden shift into equities since 1990. And when Japanese bonds briefly declined, what did equities do? Did they always rise in response? No. When they did rise, was it because bonds declined? No. So there is absolutely no reason to swallow MA's bs.
Then he changed his call by saying that 2015.75 should be the peak in the US government bonds. Did that happen? No. As you told us the bonds are still rising and rising globally. So tell me, how did you arrive at the conclusion that his prediction was correct?
Now, as for "the bond market suffers some kind of crisis and money flees into the US stock market" on which MA based his prediction 32K-40K on the Dow. Why do you take this as a gospel truth? Just take a look what happened last year when bonds declined significantly. Did those funds moved into the Dow? No. Equities were down as well. And finally look at what is going on in Japan https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IRLTLT01JPM156N. The Japanese government bonds have been rising with no collapse and sudden shift into equities since 1990. And when Japanese bonds briefly declined, what did equities do? Did they always rise in response? No. When they did rise, was it because bonds declined? No. So there is absolutely no reason to swallow MA's bs.
Fine, no argument from me there, that gold has not hit 3,000 and US debt is still good. I have no issue with the call not being 100% spot on, as I have said before - every economist I follow gets somethings wrong. They then adjust as the landscape changes.
However a call of stocks at a high in 2015 has been accurate for some major markets
DJIA: Top, May 2015
FTSE: Top, April 2015
DAX: Top, April 2015
I also notice that Armstrong predicates his words with "most likely" etc etc. TPTB will tell you that this is because time and price need to match up to elect that option, otherwise there are many scenarios that can occur. You however may say that is just ass covering. To each their own.
TPTB_needs_war will say though, that time and price need to line up together for a signal to be elected. Before that it is a matter of options. Not too hard to understand.
re: the bond market.
you seem to gloss over words in sentences. I never said that Armstrong's bond call was correct and I never said it was the gospel truth. You are of course being disingenuous. What I was saying is that if MA's call is good, then this may be evidence of its beginning.
You're correct on the JGB market although I'm sure you know the widowmaker is a whole different kettle of fish. Again, it's not swallowing MA's BS, it is reading a scenario and watching if it plays out or not.
...
Has Armstrong changed his blog format? It looks like he has, and it it not a good change IMO. His pieces are in categories, not like it was, recent pieces right there on the main blog page. That makes it harder for a quick scan of his latest.
Most unfortunate.
Has Armstrong changed his blog format? It looks like he has, and it it not a good change IMO. His pieces are in categories, not like it was, recent pieces right there on the main blog page. That makes it harder for a quick scan of his latest.
Most unfortunate.
Bad news about Bitcoin...
Apply that logic to any of the attempts to solve the BGP, you will find that none of them solve it, which suggests that your definition is incorrect. Each and every attempt at solving the BGP defines bounds on the failure tolerance; beyond these bounds, all bets are off.
Simple logic will tell you that you are making a false statement. Given a centralized solution to the Byzantine fault tolerance where messages can't be forged because there is no Sybil attack because all participants' signing key is known, then if a less than or equal to 50% of the replicas agree, then there is a fault of consensus divergence which is provable to all observers.
One might argue that if some of the replicas don't respond, it is impossible to prove they did not respond or will not. But all observers will see the same symptoms which is the definition of Byzantine fault tolerance, because they can all relay the messages (and it is assumed a P2P network can have a fully connected network if necessary).
Arguing that nothing solves BGP is irrelevant. Yeah you made a typo (you meant Byzantine fault tolerance not BGP). That is the point of this thread. Bitcoin didn't solve BGP either. Nothing does because the problem is open to Sybil attacks.
I will repeat, Bitcoin provides a Power Law distribution (winner takes all) consensus. That is all it does.
Again I think this another evidence that Bitcoin was created by the DEEP STATE with evil intentions. It is a fools gold.
Oh really. Whose illogic is that.
Since Bitcoin can not detect faultiness (consistently provable to all observers), then that means you are claiming it is Byzantine fault tolerant with up to 100% of the hashrate faulty. Which obviously violates the fundamental research about what is theoretically plausible. Which thus proves to you that your claim is incorrect.
Bitcoin is the Power Law of Economics, not Byzantine fault tolerance.
Bitcoin is the Power Law of Economics, not Byzantine fault tolerance.
Apply that logic to any of the attempts to solve the BGP, you will find that none of them solve it, which suggests that your definition is incorrect. Each and every attempt at solving the BGP defines bounds on the failure tolerance; beyond these bounds, all bets are off.
Simple logic will tell you that you are making a false statement. Given a centralized solution to the Byzantine fault tolerance where messages can't be forged because there is no Sybil attack because all participants' signing key is known, then if a less than or equal to 50% of the replicas agree, then there is a fault of consensus divergence which is provable to all observers.
One might argue that if some of the replicas don't respond, it is impossible to prove they did not respond or will not. But all observers will see the same symptoms which is the definition of Byzantine fault tolerance, because they can all relay the messages (and it is assumed a P2P network can have a fully connected network if necessary).
Arguing that nothing solves BGP is irrelevant. Yeah you made a typo (you meant Byzantine fault tolerance not BGP). That is the point of this thread. Bitcoin didn't solve BGP either. Nothing does because the problem is open to Sybil attacks.
I will repeat, Bitcoin provides a Power Law distribution (winner takes all) consensus. That is all it does.
Again I think this another evidence that Bitcoin was created by the DEEP STATE with evil intentions. It is a fools gold.
As smooth said, since the system has failed once it passes the tolerance, how can it possibly detect anything? That defies logic.
Oh really. Whose illogic is that.
...
altcoinUK
Yes, Armstrong does have Shillary!'s number alright. A liar is just the start. Moneygrubber would be a close second.
Perhaps of even greater interest, we may soon see if she broke any laws re classified intelligence. If I had been so casual with above Top Secret material when I worked for .gov in the early 1980s, I would just be getting out of jail now.
altcoinUK
Yes, Armstrong does have Shillary!'s number alright. A liar is just the start. Moneygrubber would be a close second.
Perhaps of even greater interest, we may soon see if she broke any laws re classified intelligence. If I had been so casual with above Top Secret material when I worked for .gov in the early 1980s, I would just be getting out of jail now.
My problem is with the current US politics, I would never support a socialist like Bernie Sanders (nor Armstrong would), but actually only Sanders identifies how toxic the Goldman Sachs jamboree to the economy and the stock market. Ironically Sanders represents best the anti-establishment view of Armstrong in the presidential candidate field. The socialists recipe don't solve the problem, but the toxic Goldman Sachs influence on FED, government and market clearly must be stop and I am not sure how that can be done or if any candidates really willing and can do that.
LoL First time in my life on this forum I ignore someone and all I can see with regards to the sloanf user:
"This user is currently ignored."
I hope the poor troll don't write long novels and essays about his Armstrong fixations - it is a complete waste of time as far as my concern.
"This user is currently ignored."
I hope the poor troll don't write long novels and essays about his Armstrong fixations - it is a complete waste of time as far as my concern.
I'd say you probably rushed this post a little. My understanding of MA's 2015.75 call (irrespective of whether you think it is rubbish, missed the date, or flip flopped) is for the possibility of a final surge into bonds before the bond market suffers some kind of crisis and money flees into the US stock market. This article correlates with this possibility; negative yields in the sovereign debt market, a result of a funds flocking to the short end, looking for safety and return of capital, not so much return on capital.
This illustrates a possible unintended consequence of NIRP - a further push into bonds. Again, something MA has written of.
This illustrates a possible unintended consequence of NIRP - a further push into bonds. Again, something MA has written of.
Look, it's very simple. Initially, his call on 2015.75 aka Big Bang was this:
Here (August 28th, 2009) http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2012/03/will-gold-reach-5000-809.pdf MA says “It is coming into its own and is still poised to rally to at least test the $3,000 level if not much higher.” And “Government has promised the moon, and can no more keep their promise that Santa really eats the cookies. When there is no one who buys the US debt, that is when the ceiling will fall. We will see this most likely after 2010 and it appears the end may be 2015-2016. A 21 year bull market in stocks points to 2015 and a 17.2 year high in gold points to 2016. This does not negate the decline after Labor Day back into 2010 that seems to be shaping up”.
I.e. by 2015\2016 the US debt should have collapsed, right? Did that happen? No.
Then he changed his call by saying that 2015.75 should be the peak in the US government bonds. Did that happen? No. As you told us the bonds are still rising and rising globally. So tell me, how did you arrive at the conclusion that his prediction was correct?
Now, as for "the bond market suffers some kind of crisis and money flees into the US stock market" on which MA based his prediction 32K-40K on the Dow. Why do you take this as a gospel truth? Just take a look what happened last year when bonds declined significantly. Did those funds moved into the Dow? No. Equities were down as well. And finally look at what is going on in Japan https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IRLTLT01JPM156N. The Japanese government bonds have been rising with no collapse and sudden shift into equities since 1990. And when Japanese bonds briefly declined, what did equities do? Did they always rise in response? No. When they did rise, was it because bonds declined? No. So there is absolutely no reason to swallow MA's bs.
Jump to: