Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 360. (Read 647188 times)

Do you find anything useful amongst TvP crowd as a general rule? I have found them frustratingly close minded in the past- though I think that they somewhat embody what I imagine Marx had initially envisioned in his post-capitalism paradigm. I'll take a look.

Regarding our previous conversation here (that probably caused a headache for most of the poor readers of this thread), here's a nice article for you to dive in:

http://www.joomag.com/magazine/tvp-magazine-human-vs-and-part-machine/0214079001437677240/p190

Randomness, artificial intelligence and other crazy beasts. Must read.

Hadn't seen that reply yet, but thanks for your opinion! I will try to calculate a smooth correlation. If I manage to do so I'll get back to you.

...

I think perhaps you correlated the noise and didn't apply a smoothing filter.

It's certainly possible to short some of the altcoins listed on poloniex, see -> https://poloniex.com/lending#BTC. It isn't much tougher than shorting on bitfinex, but you could encounter lower liquidity.

The current lowest lending rate for XMR 0.0001% (I have a hard time comprehending why one would offer their XMR at such a rate taking counterparty risk in mind as well) though and thus implies there isn't really much demand for shorting XMR. However, this could change if the scenario you described above materializes.

Regarding lending: There is also 5k avaible at 0.0003%, which still is insanely low.

PS: I would like to hear your opinion on what I found:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35782


Paul got straight to the point that is not necessary to violate everyone's privacy in a false strawman that it aids fighting terrorism. He got thunderous applause.

But what we really see is that the American public would much prefer a guy who can top-down manage the world, than a modest guy who wants free markets.

And so the Americans may get their Trump card, who wants to empower the military-industrial complex more.

What this shows is that there is no solution that can come from voting for a government. The only solution is taking matters into our own individual hands. For that, we MUST have anonymity technology else we are doomed to the whims of the collective.

No.

The low is due to capital flows timing and mass psychology (confidence and loss of it).

MA is merely pointing out that this is fuel for driving to the predicted benchmark lows (which remain unchanged).

MA from July 30. "The Supply Side of Gold":

"...Well, when it rains, it pours. In the Sudan, a large discovery of gold amounting to 43 tons has occurred, an amount expected to rise to 80 tons by the end of 2015, which is equivalent to a market value estimate of $2,555,262,400 if the market stays the same. The entire U.S. gold reserve is 8,000 tons. So, we are talking about a sizable discovery in the Sudan. The Sudanese government anticipates mining an additional 100 tons of gold in 2016.

From a supply-demand perspective, this could crush gold psychologically. In the long run, it will only have an impact when demand lags. It all depends upon the cost of production. When the monetary system cracks, that will be the focus. The markets will cherry-pick the news for that is always what they do...."

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35498


I'm wondering if this discovery is likely to significantly lower the low.

Why would you give up? Selling and repurchasing at lower prices is giving up?

Or do you mean that you bought at higher prices and feel not good about selling at a loss?

P.S. the only argument I could make for why altcoins would not go down while BTC and gold are, is that it might be more difficult to short them? I don't know.

It's gonna really tough for me to give up on my Monero

Yeah, I noticed. I gambled on getting out at $313, when Syriza capitulated; realizing there might be a double top, but imagining even if it did, it might not go that much higher anyway.

As for gold (also out, dead on MA's indicated Jan pop), I wonder if we will see it hover just above $1,000 this week and then have the low proper early 2016?

Buttcoin took a bit of a dive in the last 24 hr

Originally posted on MA's blog 20th July.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35149

Well, here we almost are. Let's see if anything happens.

Documented list of warnings from IMF and BIS

http://lonestarwhitehouse.blogspot.com/p/documented-list-of-imf-and-bis-warnings.html

The July 2015 Ft article adds to MA's comments on pension funds, stating that they may have a solvency problem in the case of volatile markets turning against them due to the companies they have invested in. From my readings, one such market I wouldn't want my money invested in is the junk bond market for energy (eg Oil)

Interesting perspective on the interplay between Deflation, the US Fed, pension funds and mandatory bond holdings.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35775

Indeed, this is a valid point. Science is not perfect after all, BUT; it's adequate for us to be able to explain *some* of what's there. In mathematical terms, it's pretty much the same as one is trying to express infinity via 1/x, where x->0. In most cases, he has to figure out a large enough number to solve the respective equation. On the other hand, there are some people obsessed to find what the limit is!

It reminds me back in 1999 when I got first involved into a distributed computing network that was trying to find if the prime numbers are finite; the problem well known as "The Sierpinski Problem". Collective computation via internet networking (aka:distributed computing) was something that was a significant factor for me to get involved in the first place. I became a member of a team (namely, 17orbust) and start calculating away.

Later on, I decided to become a Physicist (on my 30s) because I discovered the magic of the Science behind it. Then became a Chemist & lately Biologist, trying to figure out what their limits are... You get my point...

As for the head hurting part, if anyone has the ability (or psychopathy) to follow this conversation up until now, there's only gain for him/her.
As Arnold Schwarzenegger once said: No pain, no gain.

That is only true if it attempts to enumerates a complete set. A TOE which describes a relationship without enumerating computable sets is plausible. Thus it might not be falsifiable.

We are making reader's heads hurt.

The entropy of the Universe is (funnily) increasing; at least from our point of view of the Universe (remember, we're constantly accelerating!). To make it clear, we're heading to a Universe with maximum entropy and minimum chaos. The in between fluctuations of chaotic events are just the ripples of the waves on a "quiet" river that bumps over the rocks within. In essence, if we had a way to live forever (meaning we'd be able to observe the "end" of our Universe) everything would have been in an awkward "taxis" to introduce a Greek word to describe it.

The most philosophical question of all times though, would have been, if we're on a loop. We actually maybe are, but as a scientist, I can only accept whatever I can measure; so it's a possibility but not certainty. On the other hand, in QM there's no certainty at all; meaning that we can never be sure if we are able to observe ALL the possible "reality" but only a fraction of it (the one we actually observe). Here's a nice experiment that proves it:

http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-theory-reality-anu/37866/

The Anthropocentric model, could very well explain the abnormalities that are described above, but it's nothing but a philosophical theory and not a scientific approach. More here:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630190-500-the-human-universe-does-consciousness-create-reality/

Last but not least, we need to be multi-scientists to construct a TOE that describes everything, which (again) even if it's formed, it can never be complete as the Goedel Theorem of incompleteness suggests...

And these are the words of John von Neumann (1963):

... there have been within the experience of people now living at least three serious crises... There have been two such crises in physics---namely, the conceptual soul-searching connected with the discovery of relativity and the conceptual difficulties connected with discoveries in quantum theory... The third crisis was in mathematics. It was a very serious conceptual crisis, dealing with rigor and the proper way to carry out a correct mathematical proof. In view of the earlier notions of the absolute rigor of mathematics, it is surprising that such a thing could have happened, and even more surprising that it could have happened in these latter days when miracles are not supposed to take place. Yet it did happen.

Still summer here in Pinas. You're on the wrong side of the Mason-Dixon line.