Martin Armstrong Discussion

[sidhujag]

I haven't read a ton of his stuff but the part bothered me where he said government printing money has never positively benefited gold prices.  Well duh, that's why the fed and Comex scam exist.  Soon as Comex fails to deliver anything physical ever, then good bye to that.

T
Its a stupid system.. To ensure it works before you place order that is actualy intended for physical delivery you hve to tell them manually.. You dont really have the option realtime because most trades are just trades.. I spoke to a Manager at cboe about placing lumber trades.

[1715164549]

1715164549

[tabnloz]

A handful of major bond auctions with Europe's five largest economies and Portugal this week, looking to sell at 50% over the average auction size.

[OROBTC]

...

Meanwhile in Belgium (did not hear about this riot on ANY of the MSM (MainStream Media):

"Belgium Riots Reach up to 100,000 People Against Austerity"

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/37912

Many Europeans do not understand that shrinking government is the right response to many of their troubles.

*  *  *

I heard today that Farrakhan's rally in Washington, DC really did have a million people there.  With violent (revolution, Muslim extremist talk, etc.) rhetoric.

I didn't hear about this in the MSM either...

[TPTB_need_war]

Regarding my upthread post mentioning Persia (Iran) rising and prediction that Israel will cease to exist by 2022:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-12/meet-ghostly-iranian-spymaster-running-every-mid-east-proxy-war-he-everywhere-nowher

Regarding the start of WW3, the proxy war is opened in Eastern Europe, Middle East, and SE Asia (here we go...):

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-12/obama-wont-back-down-after-chinese-threat-sends-warships-china-islands-matter-days

Many Europeans do not understand that shrinking government is the right response to many of their troubles.

Why is that so many people can't recognize reality as it really is. Distorting the facts in your mind doesn't help you be objective. (what is that BS I read up thread from r0ach et al about gold futures market manipulation delusion and nonsense which Armstrong has entirely refuted yet these fools will continue repeating their delusion until they are bankrupted by it!)

My gosh OROBTC you disavow (mischaracterize) reality because we don't have shrinking government, we have (end game socialism on steriods devolution) increasing government and debt manifesting as totalitarianism:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/37992

The problem with austerity carried out in this fashion is that they are turning off the spigot and it is ending in Marxism/socialism. To continue to service the debt, governments hunt the rich and raise taxes then agree to exchange all info. In the process, they cause capital to hoard and not invest. So you are not really ending socialism, rather you are moving more toward totalitarianism.

[OROBTC]

...

TPTB

It's late, so perhaps I am now more dense than usual, but I think I agree with you and Armstrong.  Yes, they can make bad decisions on how to cut .gov (and tinker with taxes), pay down certain debts...

Government is getting bigger almost everywhere, my point was that apparently 100,000 Belgians don't seem to like the idea of cutting .gov.

[suda123]

Regarding my upthread post mentioning Persia (Iran) rising and prediction that Israel will cease to exist by 2022:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-12/meet-ghostly-iranian-spymaster-running-every-mid-east-proxy-war-he-everywhere-nowher

Regarding the start of WW3, the proxy war is opened in Eastern Europe, Middle East, and SE Asia (here we go...):

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-12/obama-wont-back-down-after-chinese-threat-sends-warships-china-islands-matter-days

Many Europeans do not understand that shrinking government is the right response to many of their troubles.

Why is that so many people can't recognize reality as it really is. Distorting the facts in your mind doesn't help you be objective. (what is that BS I read up thread from r0ach et al about gold futures market manipulation delusion and nonsense which Armstrong has entirely refuted yet these fools will continue repeating their delusion until they are bankrupted by it!)

My gosh OROBTC you disavow (mischaracterize) reality because we don't have shrinking government, we have (end game socialism on steriods devolution) increasing government and debt manifesting as totalitarianism:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/37992

The problem with austerity carried out in this fashion is that they are turning off the spigot and it is ending in Marxism/socialism. To continue to service the debt, governments hunt the rich and raise taxes then agree to exchange all info. In the process, they cause capital to hoard and not invest. So you are not really ending socialism, rather you are moving more toward totalitarianism.

FUck I live on guam what the hell man.

[valiz]

Bitcoin has been created and it brought the blockchain technology, circumventing the need for banks and government regulations for transferring money.

Cui bono?
The banks are now starting to use this new blockchain technology for their own benefit. This makes it likely that they worked to create Bitcoin, in order to test this new blockchain technology on a big scale.

Follow the money?
The government will only need to monitor the bitcoin community to identify a large number of enemies of the state, saving a lot of money when it comes to tracking down these people. Let them gather in one area and they will be much easier to isolate and eliminate. The banks will also save a lot of money by implementing the blockchain technology for their needs. In addition, no extra money needed to test the technology.

So, is it possible that those who promote bitcoin are actually agents of the state and of the banks?

 

[macsga]

Bitcoin has been created and it brought the blockchain technology, circumventing the need for banks and government regulations for transferring money.

Cui bono?
The banks are now starting to use this new blockchain technology for their own benefit. This makes it likely that they worked to create Bitcoin, in order to test this new blockchain technology on a big scale.

Follow the money?
The government will only need to monitor the bitcoin community to identify a large number of enemies of the state, saving a lot of money when it comes to tracking down these people. Let them gather in one area and they will be much easier to isolate and eliminate. The banks will also save a lot of money by implementing the blockchain technology for their needs. In addition, no extra money needed to test the technology.

So, is it possible that those who promote bitcoin are actually agents of the state and of the banks?

That's an interesting hypothesis. I have written about it (ok; a rather similar one) multiple times in this forum. IMHO, it's perfectly possible... so it's either that, or they simply liked the Blockchain tech and they decided to adopt it. Occam's razor.

[suda123]

Bitcoin has been created and it brought the blockchain technology, circumventing the need for banks and government regulations for transferring money.

Cui bono?
The banks are now starting to use this new blockchain technology for their own benefit. This makes it likely that they worked to create Bitcoin, in order to test this new blockchain technology on a big scale.

Follow the money?
The government will only need to monitor the bitcoin community to identify a large number of enemies of the state, saving a lot of money when it comes to tracking down these people. Let them gather in one area and they will be much easier to isolate and eliminate. The banks will also save a lot of money by implementing the blockchain technology for their needs. In addition, no extra money needed to test the technology.

So, is it possible that those who promote bitcoin are actually agents of the state and of the banks?

 

Your the guy who pulled me from 4chan huh I see your profile pic

[valiz]

Bitcoin has been created and it brought the blockchain technology, circumventing the need for banks and government regulations for transferring money.

Cui bono?
The banks are now starting to use this new blockchain technology for their own benefit. This makes it likely that they worked to create Bitcoin, in order to test this new blockchain technology on a big scale.

Follow the money?
The government will only need to monitor the bitcoin community to identify a large number of enemies of the state, saving a lot of money when it comes to tracking down these people. Let them gather in one area and they will be much easier to isolate and eliminate. The banks will also save a lot of money by implementing the blockchain technology for their needs. In addition, no extra money needed to test the technology.

So, is it possible that those who promote bitcoin are actually agents of the state and of the banks?

 

Your the guy who pulled me from 4chan huh I see your profile pic

Dude I don't know that 4chan thing is weird stuff, never set foot in it, don't speak the language either  . But I have a couple of friends who can translate 

[altcoinUK]

I have been actively trading the stock market for quite long and usually I understand what Armstrong says, but could someone help to decipher this one please?

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/date/2015/10/page/2

"The potential for a slingshot move has not been negated. To negate a slingshot, we need a daily closing in the Dow above 17735. If we have the slingshot and trap the majority, then we should see this rally fail and new lows by the first quarter."

To trap what? The shorts or longs? Having a slingshot up and then trap the longs or trap the shorts at the time when we test the lows in case DJI can't break 17,735? And what about that slingshot? Does he mean that the rally of the slingshot fail and then new lows by Q1/2016 or what kind of failed rally he is talking about?

I love Armstrong and am very interested in his opinion, but sometimes it is very hard to decipher his market talk.

[sidhujag]

I have been actively trading the stock market for quite long and usually I understand what Armstrong says, but could someone help to decipher this one please?

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/date/2015/10/page/2

"The potential for a slingshot move has not been negated. To negate a slingshot, we need a daily closing in the Dow above 17735. If we have the slingshot and trap the majority, then we should see this rally fail and new lows by the first quarter."

To trap what? The shorts or longs? Having a slingshot up and then trap the longs or trap the shorts at the time when we test the lows in case DJI can't break 17,735? And what about that slingshot? Does he mean that the rally of the slingshot fail and then new lows by Q1/2016 or what kind of failed rally he is talking about?

I love Armstrong and am very interested in his opinion, but sometimes it is very hard to decipher his market talk.

The cool thing about saying things like that is it can go both ways win win. I think we already know that his short term predictions are flawed, I would stick to his macro analysis only.

[DigiLab]

I have been actively trading the stock market for quite long and usually I understand what Armstrong says, but could someone help to decipher this one please?

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/date/2015/10/page/2

"The potential for a slingshot move has not been negated. To negate a slingshot, we need a daily closing in the Dow above 17735. If we have the slingshot and trap the majority, then we should see this rally fail and new lows by the first quarter."

To trap what? The shorts or longs? Having a slingshot up and then trap the longs or trap the shorts at the time when we test the lows in case DJI can't break 17,735? And what about that slingshot? Does he mean that the rally of the slingshot fail and then new lows by Q1/2016 or what kind of failed rally he is talking about?

I love Armstrong and am very interested in his opinion, but sometimes it is very hard to decipher his market talk.

I'm not a trader, but an engineer. Yes, Armstrong is not the easiest person to understand, as sometimes it requires more than one reading.
I think the statement above is unambiguous, or maybe I'm wrong (TPTB, sharpen your knives, ). Ok, here it goes:

On the slingshot, the market goes up and the ones being trapped are the shorts, they are losing money. Longs can not be trapped on the slingshot as they would gain money. So, first point, shorts being trapped and hence they lose money.
Further, about the rally failing, it means that the inflow of the capital which will cause the rally will not be sufficient to sustain the rally. So it will reach some top, but lose the momentum. That would be second point. By the time the shorts recuperate their losses, and get courage to go in again (fear of being trapped again in the same fashion), the market would reach new lows (Q1/2016 as per M.A.).

And again, keep in mind, the occurrence of having a slingshot is a possibility, not an absolute (if then). And in this case that (if then) is for negating the slingshot. M.A. is cautious how he makes his claims.

[suda123]

I have been actively trading the stock market for quite long and usually I understand what Armstrong says, but could someone help to decipher this one please?

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/date/2015/10/page/2

"The potential for a slingshot move has not been negated. To negate a slingshot, we need a daily closing in the Dow above 17735. If we have the slingshot and trap the majority, then we should see this rally fail and new lows by the first quarter."

To trap what? The shorts or longs? Having a slingshot up and then trap the longs or trap the shorts at the time when we test the lows in case DJI can't break 17,735? And what about that slingshot? Does he mean that the rally of the slingshot fail and then new lows by Q1/2016 or what kind of failed rally he is talking about?

I love Armstrong and am very interested in his opinion, but sometimes it is very hard to decipher his market talk.

I'm not a trader, but an engineer. Yes, Armstrong is not the easiest person to understand, as sometimes it requires more than one reading.
I think the statement above is unambiguous, or maybe I'm wrong (TPTB, sharpen your knives, ). Ok, here it goes:

On the slingshot, the market goes up and the ones being trapped are the shorts, they are losing money. Longs can not be trapped on the slingshot as they would gain money. So, first point, shorts being trapped and hence they lose money.
Further, about the rally failing, it means that the inflow of the capital which will cause the rally will not be sufficient to sustain the rally. So it will reach some top, but lose the momentum. That would be second point. By the time the shorts recuperate their losses, and get courage to go in again (fear of being trapped again in the same fashion), the market would reach new lows (Q1/2016 as per M.A.).

And again, keep in mind, the occurrence of having a slingshot is a possibility, not an absolute (if then). And in this case that (if then) is for negating the slingshot. M.A. is cautious how he makes his claims.

tptb is back yay

EDIT: I keep forgetting to tell TPTB this, martin armstrong uses for his prediction algorithms in his old laptop around the the golden ratio *phi* the ones the pyramids in gyza are geometrically made in and other US monuments or a lot of monuments made by secret societies.

You know like the illuminati triangle in the dollar bills or in music videos BS subliminal messages.

Apparently the sacred geometry is in all living life in creation, is TPTB able to crack how to predict things or formulate it into a tool using the golden ratio phi to get answers.

Find out next time on dragon ball bitcoin!

[tabnloz]

I have been actively trading the stock market for quite long and usually I understand what Armstrong says, but could someone help to decipher this one please?

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/date/2015/10/page/2

"The potential for a slingshot move has not been negated. To negate a slingshot, we need a daily closing in the Dow above 17735. If we have the slingshot and trap the majority, then we should see this rally fail and new lows by the first quarter."

To trap what? The shorts or longs? Having a slingshot up and then trap the longs or trap the shorts at the time when we test the lows in case DJI can't break 17,735? And what about that slingshot? Does he mean that the rally of the slingshot fail and then new lows by Q1/2016 or what kind of failed rally he is talking about?

I love Armstrong and am very interested in his opinion, but sometimes it is very hard to decipher his market talk.

I'm not a trader, but an engineer. Yes, Armstrong is not the easiest person to understand, as sometimes it requires more than one reading.
I think the statement above is unambiguous, or maybe I'm wrong (TPTB, sharpen your knives, ). Ok, here it goes:

On the slingshot, the market goes up and the ones being trapped are the shorts, they are losing money. Longs can not be trapped on the slingshot as they would gain money. So, first point, shorts being trapped and hence they lose money.
Further, about the rally failing, it means that the inflow of the capital which will cause the rally will not be sufficient to sustain the rally. So it will reach some top, but lose the momentum. That would be second point. By the time the shorts recuperate their losses, and get courage to go in again (fear of being trapped again in the same fashion), the market would reach new lows (Q1/2016 as per M.A.).

And again, keep in mind, the occurrence of having a slingshot is a possibility, not an absolute (if then). And in this case that (if then) is for negating the slingshot. M.A. is cautious how he makes his claims.

I'd been reading it the other way!

The slingshot is when stocks fall over and everyone predicts that this is 'the big one' and piles in short. However it comes about (bad china data, rate rise etc) this 'big one' is actually a 'big bang' in sovereign debt and not stocks. So, stocks will tumble because everything is interconnected but the real failure will be in government debt. Maybe the stock correction like we had in August was the final squash into the short end of the bond market (ie the peak).

Once people sense risk in the govt bond market they will exit en masse and flock to the perceived safety of the US dollar and private (non governmental) assets, ie the US stock market, thus causing a massive slingshot up as everyone, including many of the mums and dads currently on the sidelines, gets onboard the only remaining game in town.

So I think what he is saying is that unless we hit >17xxx on the Dow the slingshot is in play and will remain so unless a sharp fall gets the majority to believe the run is over and go short (trapping them) thereby probably not providing enough fuel to rise out of the dip.

* my reading may be completely wrong

[altcoinUK]

...

The cool thing about saying things like that is it can go both ways win win. I think we already know that his short term predictions are flawed, I would stick to his macro analysis only.

In the short term analysis Armstrong always identify some criteria which is the precondition of the projected event. He never says that "x" or "y" event will definitely happen. The projected events always depend on some predefined conditions. For that reason his short terms stock market analysis don't give much starting points to day traders like myself. I agree, his macro analysis is probably the most useful.

...

On the slingshot, the market goes up and the ones being trapped are the shorts, they are losing money. Longs can not be trapped on the slingshot as they would gain money. So, first point, shorts being trapped and hence they lose money.

No, he definitely doesn't say that. Bull traps by definition trap the longs. If the slingshot is up, then the traps obviously can only catch the longs. The shorts will be squeezed out by triggering their stop losses. I think you completely misunderstand this, but thanks anyway making effort to decipher Armstrong. :-))

The slingshot is when stocks fall over and everyone predicts that this is 'the big one' and piles in short.

Normally Armstrong means up when he refers to the slingshot move. I would imagine a slingshot movement is a motion that slowly pulling back, stretching back (i.e. going down) and then an impulsive movement to up. However, I fully understand why you interpret it differently - I am confused by his short term market terminologies as well from time to time.


I believe, I deciphered what he says. The main reason is why I was confused because Armstrong was talking about trap of the shorts not long time ago in the context of a slingshot move when the market goes down first prior to the slingshot (at the time he spelled out that the trap will be related to shorts, and therefore that was very clear). But this time I think he refers to trapping the longs. So here we go day traders, here is Armstrong's projection:

If the market stays below 17,735 then it will test the lows. Now this is fucking useless btw as he doesn't say in which period, stay below this week, in the whole October, until end of November or until when. Anyway, so if the market stays below 17,735 - most likely he means in the next few weeks - then we will test the August lows or even it can go lower. (Armstrong indicated previously that DJI can go as low as 13K). He projects that if the resistance of 17,735 is hold, then following testing of the lows the slingshot move will take the market UP, most likely to new highs. Please note, I add this as Armstrong indicated or implied previously that the slingshot move will be resulting in new highs. And then, this new highs will be a giant bull trap which will take out the wall street junkies by taking back the market to new lows. Now, I am positive that's what he says.

If this scenario will unfold then that will be actually in line with TPTB timing theory about the money will flow to the US market following the lows of Q1 2016. Though in terms of capital inflow to US it doesn't really matter whether there will be lows on the market in Q1 2016 or not - the capital will flow to the US anyway.

Are any other SPX, DJI, IWM, GDX, etc. day traders here? If yes then I might open a thread to discuss these day trade issues as well as to share our day trade moves to embarrass ourselves by demonstrating how we can't  predict the market.

[DigiLab]

On the slingshot, the market goes up and the ones being trapped are the shorts, they are losing money. Longs can not be trapped on the slingshot as they would gain money. So, first point, shorts being trapped and hence they lose money.

No, he definitely doesn't say that. Bull traps by definition trap the longs. If the slingshot is up, then the traps obviously can only catch the longs. The shorts will be squeezed out by triggering their stop losses.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/37666

Abstract from the M.A. article above, which is from October 2nd:
"If the August low of 15370 gives way, we will head to that slingshot move where we will first move down and trap everyone bearish to provide the fuel to rise again, which is initiated by short-covering."

So, slingshot move, and trap everyone bearish, which will actually provide the fuel for the slingshot move up per se. To negate this slingshot move a daily closing in the Dow above 17735 is required (per M.A.). But if that doesn't take place, still it doesn't necessarily mean that the slingshot move will occur.

In order for the slingshot move to allow for a bull trap, then slingshot move should be a false move. That might be the case as well, although I don't recall M.A. referring to this slingshot to be a false move as well.
So, slingshot, if it occurs, will be initiated by the short covering. Will it pull in the bulls to turn into a bull trap, maybe.

Are any other SPX, DJI, IWM, GDX, etc. day traders here? If yes then I might open a thread to discuss these day trade issues as well as to share our day trade moves to embarrass ourselves by demonstrating how we can't  predict the market.

Good idea. I'm not a trader, but I would like to learn from the traders. Like I learned a quite from this thread, despite sometimes the thread steering away into not such a productive discussions.

[OROBTC]

...

Armstrong today posts four nice items:

"A British Reporter Gets Mad & Tells the Real News"

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38060

(A comedian, very funny)


Two gold/silver pieces:

"Silver Rally & Gold Decline?"

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38040

"Gold Standard Nonsense Compelling Us To Repeat History"

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38069

I am as much a gold fan as anyone, but Armstrong is right on both IMO: little evidence of price conspiracies and we do NOT need a gold standard.  Gold is best used as a Store of Wealth (and insurance vs. financial malfeasance), not as "money".


trollercoaster and other Aussies should comment on this one:

"Australia’s New PM: Ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs"

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38073

Goldman Rats 666 strikes again!

[RealBitcoin]

Today's economist PhD's are doctors.... witch doctors, they will cure the economy, no doubt:

[sidhujag]

The only thing I'm watching out for is 32k dow.. ive been waiting a few years for that.