They are are calling for a panic cycle this month and high volatility. We'll see what happens.

I still think sub 1000 gold is possible, but it would have to be this year imho. We closed January 1 point under the first monthly bullish reversal on gold, so we should be turning back down now.

The latest monthly arrays are showing a panic cycle AND volatility in both the S&P 500 and Dow for February, and the weekly arrays are showing this week as a panic cycle. I wouldn't be surprised to see a massive blowoff this week to shake out all the shorts and get everyone on the wrong side as Martin talks about, especially considering the lack of pressure from any weekly reversals in the DOW between here and 25966. That kind of rally would also go through 200 DMA in the S&P 500, which would be perfect for squeezing out every last short. We don't even have any daily reversals in the S&P 500 until 2785.

With that said it is possible the rally today could be the high and we gap down tomorrow, but I am leaning towards a bigger "blowoff". Whatever the case, I think this is a crucial week and I will be paying very close attention. Gold hasn't dropped much yet but I'm not worried, all my sources of analysis are saying the high is in so I would be very surprised if we broke towards new highs. We closed January 1 point below the first monthly Gold reversal, if that isn't the perfect test of Martin's system then I don't know what is.

The DOW just closed above the 25003 weekly reversal at 25063. The S&P 500 failed to elect its first monthly reversal, but the DOW has managed to elect both the monthly and the weekly.

No clear signal for the direction of the indexes.

We are in the process of updating our site, migrating data, and transitioning to a new infrastructure.
You may experience delays and discrepancies during this time. We appreciate your patience and understanding.

The reversals are not "changing", Socrates still does not have all the requisite data. The reversals are not entirely accurate right now, although they do seem to be filling out and I'm noticing less discrepancies every day.

You guys are putting too much focus on the arrays. It is the reversals which are the most powerful trading tool, and the reversals in combination with the arrays.

We have a massive gap in the DOW weekly bullish reversals between 25003 and 25996, tomorrow is the big test of that.



I've also been paying attention to the daily reversals, particularly the S&P 500 where we have another big gap. We were way out ahead of the daily bullish reversal earlier today, but we have pulled back. I think if we elect the 2696 daily reversal in the S&P today, it suggests we are likely to also elect the weekly reversal in the DOW tomorrow.



I am posting my thoughts daily at reddit.com/r/aec, come join the conversation there.

We're all so grateful you're here to save us from our ignorance.

I don't take his forecasts on the weather and earthquakes seriously, I doubt even he believes such forecasts are going to be reliably accurate considering all the unknown variables and limited amount of information available from inconsistent historical records. I think he is just speculating on these subjects out of sheer curiosity.

I think he suffers from Great Man's Syndrome, where he starts speculating on topics outside his area of expertise.

I see what you're saying but I still don't think it is a correct way of describing his forecasts. If (reversal election) ---> Then ---> Else is not the same as saying "we either make new lows or we don't". We have yet to have any real-time access to his reversals through Socrates, and IMO it is very hard to use his system without having all the reversals charted in real time. Trying to make short term trades off the inconsistent output of information that he posts in his private blog is a fools errand, we NEEDED Socrates to do any real trading. Now that Socrates is out, this is the real test of his system IMO.

Do not forget the bigger picture guys:

https://www.reddit.com/r/aec/comments/akrf6y/yearly_bearish_reversals/

btw I am trying to get the aec subreddit going, because I prefer reddit's design to traditional forums. I'll be posting my thoughts on the Pro version of Socrates there if anyone is interested.

We just came within 20 points of the 2017 high.

Fundamentally it is my belief that the state is nothing other than glorified cult behaviour, and that the issues used to justify the redistribution of wealth and others forms of central planning are in fact issues created by prior acts of the state itself. To put it simply, human beings continue to project their own fears into reality. Human beings are psychologically scarred from the brutal process of evolution, and we are in a collective state of stockholm syndrome.

The belief in the supposed "natural" concentration of wealth that is claimed we would see in an economically free society seems to be the equivalent of saying that in a free sexual market the beautiful would get more beautiful and the ugly would get uglier, thus we should demand the state force beautiful women to sleep with ugly men to correct this flaw in the structure of evolutionary reality. The reality is that it has been theorized that everyone is actually getting more beautiful, which is to say that outside of disfigurement from either accident or abusive diet, or those with a fundamental genetic flaw (downs, etc.), the most ugly people of today are significantly more attractive than the most ugly people of centuries prior.

It's been 6 days since I hit my XMR auto payout threshold and still haven't received payment. My account is Lateralus23, I haven't changed anything since the last payment which went perfectly fine. What's going on?

The auto payment was activated, but the transaction has no TX # next to it and nothing showed up in my wallet.

And what is that exactly, other than a miserable stagnant existence in the self administered chains of dependence? Or are you simply referring to the illusions that socialists have fallen for? I hope I'm not the only one who realizes that the systemically poor deserve exactly what they get, and get exactly what they demand. By demanding the redistribution of wealth they ask that compassion and empathy be made mandatory, which in reality means they are asking for a world in which all forms of genuine compassion and empathy be eliminated. The only possible victory scenario of socialism is successfully bringing the rest of mankind down with it, but in it's defeat we would see the greatest possible good for the greatest number of people (Karl Marx eat your heart out).


BTW I was reading back through this thread and I found I seriously disagree with this statement. I think men merely mistake the oppression of nature and of their direct ancestors poor decision making for oppression by the hand of their fellow living man. Slavery between men can be eliminated or at the very least virtually eliminated. You can look at it from a point of view of diminishing returns in nonlinear dynamic systems, in that a society that is 99% free of coercion is basically just as good as a theoretically 100% coercion-free society while also being exponentially easier to attain the further you get away from that 100% theoretical goal.

Maybe you can expand on your reasoning because I just don't see it.

Literally babbies first argument against fractional reserve banking. The money-multiplier theory has been debunked time and time again. AGAIN, it's simply called LEVERAGE. You're trapped in circular logic.


Conveniently you leave out the part where the bank splits the earned interest with depositors.

Also FRB != central banking & interest rate manipulation. You guys keep trying to tie those two things together when they are completely separate ideas.

This is a thread on Armstrong's work isn't it? One of the most critical aspects of his entire thesis is that you people who rip on FRB and can't see the inherent flaws of commodity-backed currencies (and how unnecessary they are in the first place), are just as lost as anyone.

Austrian theory is NOT INFALLIBLE, and that's saying a lot because I have immense respect for their school of thought. There are PLENTY of others who share that same respect and yet agree when these critical flaws are pointed out in classical Austrian theory.

" leverage is what got us in this mess, claims may not respected (bank runs)".

There's no more reason to ban the practice of fractional reserve banking because it can go wrong any more than there is reason to ban ownership of guns because they can be used to murder innocent people. The problem is, like always, a LACK OF COMPETITION. So no, SOCIALISM with it's never ending amount of state borrowing is what got us into this mess. Government intervention in the housing market is what got us into this mess. Government monopolization of the banking industry is what got us into this mess.

In the U.S., J.P. Morgan and his colleagues tried to set up a private reserve system in 1913, unfortunately that got hijacked in 1914 by the progressives in Washington who turned their ingenious system into the grotesque monster known as the Federal Reserve today. It was Morgan who single handedly managed to contain the crisis of 1907, and that was the event that inspired bankers to create a reserve system in order to deal with bank runs should they happen. It was the FREE MARKET at work, and once again the fucking marxists got in the way in 1914, which is why we are where we are today.

Rather than questioning it, you're just trying to twist history and reality to fit your presupposed idea that there's something inherently wrong with fractional reserve banking, which is why, as iamnotback said, you are simply "conflating orthogonal issues".

What do you think fractional reserve banking is? It's the process of investing depositors funds and putting them work rather than just having it sit there in a "vault". 100% reserve banking = dead money/dead capital doing nothing.

Fractional reserve banking is just LEVERAGE.

I'll be honest I really only come to this site because it's the only english forum that I know of where people discuss Armstrong's work. So my understanding of cryptocurrency is extremely limited, it's just one of those things that I have on my "to study" list.

In my mind in a theoretical free banking market of competing currencies, I'm wondering if it's possible there would be no need of "mining" in the first place.

If we set cryptocurrency aside for a second, and look at what a free banking market of competing paper currencies would look like, I imagine it is actually fractional reserve banking itself that automatically regulates the supply of money and interest rates. As the demand for money grows (due to increased economic confidence & desire from entrepreneurs and established businesses to take on risk), banks would then also be more willing to take on risk because those businesses would be more willing to pay higher interest rates. But the banks can't simply create as much money as they want (as the gold bug types would suggest), because they must manage the amount of leverage they are using with depositors funds (the fractional reserve rate). Too much leverage (too low reserves), would mean too much risk, and of course there would naturally develop an industry for third party auditing which tracks the reserve rates of each currency in the various banks. We could see high risk (relatively speaking) currencies, and low risk currencies develop. Maybe even currencies for use specific industries, as well as separate consumer level currencies. Who knows really.

So looking at cryptocurrency, I'm wondering if this whole concept of digital "mining" is nothing but an unnecessary roadblock to establishing a truly successful cryptocurrency. I'm wondering if Satoshi was one of these "gold bug" types who mistook the flaws of government monopolization of currency creation (and thus the banking industry itself) as a flaw of paper currencies themselves. Like Armstrong I don't see gold as "sound money", but merely a commodity which people have used to hedge against the inevitable failures of government. On the contrary I see paper currency as this miraculous thing that never had a chance to truly thrive in a free banking market, as no free banking market has ever been allowed to exist for long enough to stabilize. Cryptocurrency is obviously likely to be even more miraculous, and thus maybe we're just in the process of skipping past ever seeing an era of such free market paper currencies as I described. Still, I feel that thinking about how such free market paper currencies might work is an invaluable thought experiment.

Again maybe I am completely misunderstanding the purpose of mining in cryptocurrencies, but it seems to be nothing other than a product of this fallacious belief in fixed money supplies and unfounded fears of hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is really a product of governments trying to preserve their power by ordering banks to continue to operate on the state currency despite the irresponsible amount of state debt which is denominated in the currency. Hyperinflation is merely what happens when corrupt societies attempt to rapidly liquidate their holdings of state debt in a panic, as they subconsciously or consciously realize they've bet their life savings on something which is essentially a giant cult ponzi scheme.

That is what modern countries are to me, giant cult ponzi schemes. Or in the words of Bastiat "Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

I find it funny the people who think FRB is a scam also think inflation shouldn't exist.

Money is nothing other than the lifeblood of society, and just as a human body grows in size and requires a larger volume of blood, the economy requires an increase in money supply in order to operate effeciently (hence the term "liquidity").

100% reserve banking is socialism because it leaves no legitimate way to expand the money supply, and a fixed money supply rewards people who sit on their ass, it treats money like it was a corporate share in the economy that should increase in value as time goes on. This is also why cryptocurrencies which are modeled on fixed money supplies are doomed to fail over the long term (or at least fail in the sense that they will always be relegated to niche uses, rather than becoming primary or world-leading currencies)

Roach you're just another luddite running your mouth about a world you haven't even begun to understand.

Artificially low interest rates have absolutely nothing to do with fractional reserve banking.