Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 329. (Read 647196 times)
Does anyone have a screenshot of The Forecaster movie where the famous slide was shown in 1998?
it just changes thinking i believe and depends how fast/slow people respond to new information. So depending on how they are feeling this month it could happen fast or slower than predicted but in general should start to see something in the next few months.
Arguing about whether it's September 23rd or Oct 1 or Oct 7 is silly. War might break out today or tomorrow or next week depending on the health of an individual politician. The Sovereign Debt Big Bang might be delayed a few weeks depending on the actions of one important central banker. Even if this cycle is accurate, there's obviously variance. Predicting global changes is more like predicting the weather than solving a differential equation.
Let's just say: Q4 2015, 89% chance of the Sovereign Debt Big Bang
Let's just say: Q4 2015, 89% chance of the Sovereign Debt Big Bang
The business cycle and the future, by martin armstrong:
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html
Interesting, this article notes 2015.75 as October 7. Larry Edelson also has Oct 7 as his turning point date.
How does the variance of dates occur?
I easily have that 7 days in exceeding the deadline of a 2 weeks software project, those guys who work with 70+ years cycles could have that 7 days difference :-))))
Exactly. We're talking about a 309y cycle here that closes right about now. In any case according to this today's the date. I guess he tried to explain that the consequences might be sometime before being observed. Let's see.
I'm not thinking today had to be the day. I understand it's a turning point, what I mean is that 2015.75 as matched with a particular day is specific 365 x .75 = 273.75 (Sept 30 / Oct 1).
The business cycle and the future, by martin armstrong:
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html
Interesting, this article notes 2015.75 as October 7. Larry Edelson also has Oct 7 as his turning point date.
How does the variance of dates occur?
I easily have that 7 days in exceeding the deadline of a 2 weeks software project, those guys who work with 70+ years cycles could have that 7 days difference :-))))
Exactly. We're talking about a 309y cycle here that closes right about now. In any case according to this today's the date. I guess he tried to explain that the consequences might be sometime before being observed. Let's see.
The business cycle and the future, by martin armstrong:
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html
Interesting, this article notes 2015.75 as October 7. Larry Edelson also has Oct 7 as his turning point date.
How does the variance of dates occur?
I easily have that 7 days in exceeding the deadline of a 2 weeks software project, those guys who work with 70+ years cycles could have that 7 days difference :-))))
It seems Armstrong is a believer in reading the tea leaves of market data and figuring where prices will go.
He has some good ideas about how money, the economy and the world basically works, but this "technical" reading is definitely not productive. The system is way too complex and uncertain at this level of detail.
His monetary history lacks a bit of focus, with a lot of period details but not enough conceptual material to tie things together.
My advice would be: build your own world view one piece at a time. Read mostly mainstream material on money, economics, and history, but also blogs like Armstrong to fill in some details. Even though the mainstream authors tend to be biased in favor of the modern elite-dominated system, good authors can't help but reveal clues that point to the deeper reality. The key is to build and maintain your own concepts, and validate them by discussing in forums like this.
He has some good ideas about how money, the economy and the world basically works, but this "technical" reading is definitely not productive. The system is way too complex and uncertain at this level of detail.
His monetary history lacks a bit of focus, with a lot of period details but not enough conceptual material to tie things together.
My advice would be: build your own world view one piece at a time. Read mostly mainstream material on money, economics, and history, but also blogs like Armstrong to fill in some details. Even though the mainstream authors tend to be biased in favor of the modern elite-dominated system, good authors can't help but reveal clues that point to the deeper reality. The key is to build and maintain your own concepts, and validate them by discussing in forums like this.
The business cycle and the future, by martin armstrong:
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour/2006/06/martin_armstron.html
Interesting, this article notes 2015.75 as October 7. Larry Edelson also has Oct 7 as his turning point date.
How does the variance of dates occur?
It's interesting how David Stockman, former budget director of Reagan having the very same opinion as Armstrong's on many aspects of economic problems.
He had a rant on CNBC yesterday, the CNBC bulls crew was seemingly shocked by his opinion.
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/david-stockman-on-cnbc-were-on-the-fiscal-titanic/
He had a rant on CNBC yesterday, the CNBC bulls crew was seemingly shocked by his opinion.
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/david-stockman-on-cnbc-were-on-the-fiscal-titanic/
Great discussion last few pages. Been AFK for a time but managed to stream MA's doco at least.
John
To each their own, but Rickards' views aren't too different from Armstrong's. Rickards has repeatedly stated that the USD will be the last man standing and that junk bonds and emerging market dollar denominated debt are primed to blow, with currency wars and their deflationary effects seeing to that. He has said no rate rise for over a year, while Armstrong said the FED may be forced to rise (in his opinion not the models) as its a choice between saving emerging markets or American pension funds. The FED chose the EM's. Rickards also says that there is no overt effort to overthrow the dollar, more a tacit understanding to let China into 'the club's' SDR basket. And I think Dent turned from Bear to Bull recently, no?
edit: (brackets)
TPTB_needs_war
Thanks for a number of excellent posts. Concise and well written. I have a couple of questions:
1. (first sentence above) So a move into the short end signals that no one trusts governments enough to return their money over a longer period. Is there a way to measure increased volumes or is it just by seeing the yield drop further?
2. (second) Does this mirror 1931 (that Armstrong always notes), where Euro countries defaulted which ended up shaking up the US markets / economy due to flows?
Again, thanks.
1. Not sure I grasp this. I get it for the USD, ie, that while things have worsened in EM's it has strengthened, but is it the same for stocks?
2. Does the behavior of 'bad news is really good news' (eg dropping inflation / PMI numbers sees a stock boost as the market anticipates QE) exemplify this because government will do all they can to maintain / save the system?
SmoothCurves
in The Forecaster, I'm pretty sure it is in the background while footage of Armstrong addressing the 98 conference is playing.
From the doco and youtube clips Armstrong had a team at a London Library (?) for a year going through the all the material relating to Ancient Greece, Sumeria etc. He also acquired the coinage from these empires as the actual coins were a communication method to the people regarding battles, kings etc. In the doco he tells the story of the Bank of Lebanon calling him and asking him to compute a model based on an old book they had found regarding the Lebanese pound. Armstrong did and the modelling suggested a crisis in 8 days, and 8 days later the Lebanese civil war broke out.
John
Quote
Anyway I will leave it to it as I prefer to focus on real economists like Jim Rickards, Harry Dent and co.
To each their own, but Rickards' views aren't too different from Armstrong's. Rickards has repeatedly stated that the USD will be the last man standing and that junk bonds and emerging market dollar denominated debt are primed to blow, with currency wars and their deflationary effects seeing to that. He has said no rate rise for over a year, while Armstrong said the FED may be forced to rise (in his opinion not the models) as its a choice between saving emerging markets or American pension funds. The FED chose the EM's. Rickards also says that there is no overt effort to overthrow the dollar, more a tacit understanding to let China into 'the club's' SDR basket. And I think Dent turned from Bear to Bull recently, no?
edit: (brackets)
TPTB_needs_war
Quote
We've got the situation now were everyone is moving to the short-end of the curve (short-term sovereign bonds), because it is very uncertain if the world's central banks can do another coordinated bailout with the debt default situation much worse now in Europe, Japan, China, Brazil, Australia, etc than it was in 2008.
So we've got a lopsided situation now where the USA does not have the political nor economic incentive to participate in a global bailout.
So we've got a lopsided situation now where the USA does not have the political nor economic incentive to participate in a global bailout.
Thanks for a number of excellent posts. Concise and well written. I have a couple of questions:
1. (first sentence above) So a move into the short end signals that no one trusts governments enough to return their money over a longer period. Is there a way to measure increased volumes or is it just by seeing the yield drop further?
2. (second) Does this mirror 1931 (that Armstrong always notes), where Euro countries defaulted which ended up shaking up the US markets / economy due to flows?
Quote
Armstrong's entire point about whether the US stock market would double before 2015.75 or after, was all about whether US stocks (and the dollar) would continue to behave as a Public asset, or would they phase shift and become a Private asset (and rise while interest rates are rising, i.e. rising when the general economic outlook is tightening and worsening thus not being bought for income potential but rather like gold bought for being a hedge against government). It became clear by the end of 2014 that the latter was the case.
Again, thanks.
1. Not sure I grasp this. I get it for the USD, ie, that while things have worsened in EM's it has strengthened, but is it the same for stocks?
2. Does the behavior of 'bad news is really good news' (eg dropping inflation / PMI numbers sees a stock boost as the market anticipates QE) exemplify this because government will do all they can to maintain / save the system?
SmoothCurves
Quote
Is there any independent evidence that this slide was really shown in 1998?
in The Forecaster, I'm pretty sure it is in the background while footage of Armstrong addressing the 98 conference is playing.
Quote
TPTB_need_war could you elucidate on MA's backtest on 6,000 year old data? What data does he have that is 6,000 years old? Is it specifically economic data or something else?
From the doco and youtube clips Armstrong had a team at a London Library (?) for a year going through the all the material relating to Ancient Greece, Sumeria etc. He also acquired the coinage from these empires as the actual coins were a communication method to the people regarding battles, kings etc. In the doco he tells the story of the Bank of Lebanon calling him and asking him to compute a model based on an old book they had found regarding the Lebanese pound. Armstrong did and the modelling suggested a crisis in 8 days, and 8 days later the Lebanese civil war broke out.
Im paying attention to armstrong but more for global economic outlook, for bitcoin specifically? Not so much.
I agree that Bitcoin is quite different. I think, due to the low market cap and low volume Bitcoin could behave very differently than other assets. No wonder, MtGox's two bots could push (manipulate) the BTC price up to 1K USD - that peek price was nothing to do with USD price nor with economics it was a pure manipulation.
On the other hand, despite Armstrong know very little about crypto currencies I thing he is absolutely spot on saying that governments have been just watching and waiting with regards to BTC. Once it gets bigger and disrupt the tax collection then governments will have a combined effort to take it down.
Be careful with terminology. I know what you meant but he said that gold will decouple from other "commodities" because the collapsing economy will not lead to high prices of things like iron ore. Precious metals (and perhaps Bitcoin) are in a different category.
Yes indeed. Thanks for the clarification. I need some more caffeine, still early morning in Greece.
Frappe? I miss that.
Yep! Frappe it is! Strong one, had about only 3hrs sleep and have a lot of lab work today...
Update:
I have been warning that this turning point is not in markets, it is centered in government. The number of issues coming to a head are just mind-blowing from the Catalonia vote to separate from Spain to the resignation of Boehner with non-politicians leading not just in the USA, but everywhere. The elections in Greece was most likely the last vote for any political establishment since the Greeks do not expect any promise to be kept.
Yet today just may mark a very strange event that might be extremely important. Today, Russia gave the US 1 hour notice and began bombing both ISIS and rebels seeking to overthrow the Syrian government. It is extremely curious that this beginning precisely on the day of the ECM. Will this prove to be the start of international war?
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/date/2015/09
PS: Frappe works!
Be careful with terminology. I know what you meant but he said that gold will decouple from other "commodities" because the collapsing economy will not lead to high prices of things like iron ore. Precious metals (and perhaps Bitcoin) are in a different category.
Yes indeed. Thanks for the clarification. I need some more caffeine, still early morning in Greece.
Frappe? I miss that.
Be careful with terminology. I know what you meant but he said that gold will decouple from other "commodities" because the collapsing economy will not lead to high prices of things like iron ore. Precious metals (and perhaps Bitcoin) are in a different category.
Yes indeed. Thanks for the clarification. I need some more caffeine, still early morning in Greece.
If Martin's model is to be believed. How low can we expect Bitcoin to go? and by When? Is Under $100 in Spring of '16 a safe bet?
I think bitcoin does not go low, he doesnt state anything about bitcoin and perhaps because its new, no cycles to go off of, but I personally believe its cycle low has been achieved and through either cycle, public or private bitcoin will benefit regardless of what usd is doing. Thats me personally though.
TPTB_need_war has thoroughly explained what will happen with the BTC if M. Armstrong is correct. BTC should be considered as commodity and most probably will follow the way that gold & silver will go.
Be careful with terminology. I know what you meant but he said that gold will decouple from other "commodities" because the collapsing economy will not lead to high prices of things like iron ore. Precious metals (and perhaps Bitcoin) are in a different category.
Im paying attention to armstrong but more for global economic outlook, for bitcoin specifically? Not so much.
If Martin's model is to be believed. How low can we expect Bitcoin to go? and by When? Is Under $100 in Spring of '16 a safe bet?
I think bitcoin does not go low, he doesnt state anything about bitcoin and perhaps because its new, no cycles to go off of, but I personally believe its cycle low has been achieved and through either cycle, public or private bitcoin will benefit regardless of what usd is doing. Thats me personally though.
TPTB_need_war has thoroughly explained what will happen with the BTC if M. Armstrong is correct. BTC should be considered as commodity and most probably will follow the way that gold & silver will go.
Be careful with terminology. I know what you meant but he said that gold will decouple from other "commodities" because the collapsing economy will not lead to high prices of things like iron ore. Precious metals (and perhaps Bitcoin) are in a different category.
If Martin's model is to be believed. How low can we expect Bitcoin to go? and by When? Is Under $100 in Spring of '16 a safe bet?
I think bitcoin does not go low, he doesnt state anything about bitcoin and perhaps because its new, no cycles to go off of, but I personally believe its cycle low has been achieved and through either cycle, public or private bitcoin will benefit regardless of what usd is doing. Thats me personally though.
TPTB_need_war has thoroughly explained what will happen with the BTC if M. Armstrong is correct. BTC should be considered as commodity and most probably will follow the way that gold & silver will go. As for October 1st (have a nice month BTW) it's wise to not judge right away. I'm among the skeptics here, but the guy predicted "the end of government" & peak of sovereign debt not some apocalyptic event.
Every prediction tends to have more than one meaning, that's why I called him "Mantis Calchas" (an oracle from ancient Greece) when I posed some questions to him (btw: never replied either to my questions for his official Q&A, nor to my emails).
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/37591
Donald Trump: I would end ISIS forcefully. I think ISIS, what they did, was unbelievable what they did with James Foley and with the cutting off of heads of everybody, I mean these people are totally a disaster. Now, let me just say this, ISIS in Syria, Assad in Syria, Assad and ISIS are mortal enemies. We go in to fight ISIS. Why aren't we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants? Why are we doing this? We're fighting ISIS and Assad has to be saying to himself, "They have the nicest or dumbest people that I've ever imagined."
Scott Pelley: Let me get this right, so we lay off ISIS for now?
Donald Trump: Excuse me, let --
Scott Pelley: Lay off in Syria, let them destroy Assad. And then we go in behind that?
Donald Trump: --that's what I would say. Yes, that's what I would say.
Or, he had another idea, leave it to an old adversary.
Donald Trump: If you look at Syria. Russia wants to get rid of ISIS. We want to get rid of ISIS. Maybe let Russia do it. Let 'em get rid of ISIS. What the hell do we care?
Donald Trump: I would end ISIS forcefully. I think ISIS, what they did, was unbelievable what they did with James Foley and with the cutting off of heads of everybody, I mean these people are totally a disaster. Now, let me just say this, ISIS in Syria, Assad in Syria, Assad and ISIS are mortal enemies. We go in to fight ISIS. Why aren't we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants? Why are we doing this? We're fighting ISIS and Assad has to be saying to himself, "They have the nicest or dumbest people that I've ever imagined."
Scott Pelley: Let me get this right, so we lay off ISIS for now?
Donald Trump: Excuse me, let --
Scott Pelley: Lay off in Syria, let them destroy Assad. And then we go in behind that?
Donald Trump: --that's what I would say. Yes, that's what I would say.
Or, he had another idea, leave it to an old adversary.
Donald Trump: If you look at Syria. Russia wants to get rid of ISIS. We want to get rid of ISIS. Maybe let Russia do it. Let 'em get rid of ISIS. What the hell do we care?
Isn't america or CIA specifically ISIS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scD3oYQuigk
TPTB_need_war could you elucidate on MA's backtest on 6,000 year old data? What data does he have that is 6,000 years old? Is it specifically economic data or something else?
Somewhere around sacred geometry or something, even historical structures.
*puts on tin foil hat* shit like the shimetah and the kabbalah it seems like the elite follow some kind of schedule to artificially make events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L777RhL_Fz4
I remember reading something days ago about things are not infinite, which means there has to be a universal design on probability.
TPTB_need_war could you elucidate on MA's backtest on 6,000 year old data? What data does he have that is 6,000 years old? Is it specifically economic data or something else?
Jump to: