Martin Armstrong Discussion

[macsga]

the banks aren't going to give up their global ATM machine easily - after all the money supply never dry out in that global ATM machine.

If they are going to ban cash wouldn't the ATMs would be useless?
I mean we would all use contactless Credit Cards, card readers for merchants, and so on. But the ATM system itself would go to waste.
Its funny because the ATM manufacturers dont like that. They could have banned cash a long time ago , but I think the ATM business is not letting them.
In a world where all is centered for profit, you have to wrestle with your business partners too

This is pretty much what I had in mind as well. Having a conversation with an "economist" last week he said to me that this will be the future of finance whether we like it or not; fiat money will be used only in the 1% of the people that fall into the category "I don't want to evolve". Being a witness of the transition in Greece the last couple of years, (especially after the capital controls) it's pretty easy to achieve this goal within -literally- weeks.

The only thing you have to do is to "cut the paper circulation". Everybody's running for their brand new plastic cards!

[rpietila]

are busy creating crises to keep people in fear.

I don't think the majority of bankers are purposefully creating the crisis to keep people in fear. They are just greedy and there is a tremendous incentive from their viewpoint to keep the current system that yields them tens of billions dollar per year profit keep going. No doubt that Goldman Sachs and the likes run the show via their sockpuppets in central banks and government, and those greedy f@ckers in the banks aren't going to give up their global ATM machine easily - after all the money supply never dry out in that global ATM machine.

We are talking about the top layer of guys, not the ones that are employed by banks.

The top layer holds the power to create and destroy money, and that can be used with good or evil intentions. The system itself is evil, and it is used evilly, and being confused about its nature does not make it any less evil or intentional.

[tabnloz]

Here's an interesting one - negative rates in Europe are having the opposite desired effect: savings rates are actually increasing.

This says that the average person cannot be dissuaded from what they see on a daily basis in their lives.

Despite NIRP "household savings rates have also risen. For Switzerland and Sweden this appears to have happened at the tail end of 2013 (before the oil price decline). As the BIS have highlighted, ultra-low rates may perversely be driving a greater propensity for consumers to save as retirement income becomes more uncertain."


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-29/bank-america-looks-europes-record-%E2%82%AC26-trillion-negative-yielding-debt-stunned-what-i

This stands against some commentators who I follow that suggest the EU is actually making the necessary reforms needed to allow it to exit the quagmire first. That remains to be seen, but always good to look at differing opinions.

[RealBitcoin]

Here's an interesting one - negative rates in Europe are having the opposite desired effect: savings rates are actually increasing.

This says that the average person cannot be dissuaded from what they see on a daily basis in their lives.

Despite NIRP "household savings rates have also risen. For Switzerland and Sweden this appears to have happened at the tail end of 2013 (before the oil price decline). As the BIS have highlighted, ultra-low rates may perversely be driving a greater propensity for consumers to save as retirement income becomes more uncertain."


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-29/bank-america-looks-europes-record-%E2%82%AC26-trillion-negative-yielding-debt-stunned-what-i

This stands against some commentators who I follow that suggest the EU is actually making the necessary reforms needed to allow it to exit the quagmire first. That remains to be seen, but always good to look at differing opinions.

They are saving, I am saving too, but they are not saving in a bank.

Who is so foolish to put all his money in a bank? Especially in a country where the debt is like 500% like in Japan or Ireland, these will go bankrupt sooner or later.

I have money in bank but if the interest rates will decline further (which they will) I`ll get it out.

[tabnloz]

Here's an interesting one - negative rates in Europe are having the opposite desired effect: savings rates are actually increasing.

This says that the average person cannot be dissuaded from what they see on a daily basis in their lives.

Despite NIRP "household savings rates have also risen. For Switzerland and Sweden this appears to have happened at the tail end of 2013 (before the oil price decline). As the BIS have highlighted, ultra-low rates may perversely be driving a greater propensity for consumers to save as retirement income becomes more uncertain."


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-29/bank-america-looks-europes-record-%E2%82%AC26-trillion-negative-yielding-debt-stunned-what-i

This stands against some commentators who I follow that suggest the EU is actually making the necessary reforms needed to allow it to exit the quagmire first. That remains to be seen, but always good to look at differing opinions.

They are saving, I am saving too, but they are not saving in a bank.

Who is so foolish to put all his money in a bank? Especially in a country where the debt is like 500% like in Japan or Ireland, these will go bankrupt sooner or later.

I have money in bank but if the interest rates will decline further (which they will) I`ll get it out.

I am too, with gold and bitcoin as my government hedge. But this goes against the intended outcomes of ZIRP and NIRP, ie to force money to be spent. Probably why most theoretical economics that use outdated modelling (The Fed) are wrong in the wild. Kind of heroic in a way, that the masses instinctively know something is amiss and that crackpot policy and blabbering media cannot change the sentiment. This is also something that Armstrong recognised; that there is no bubble in stocks as Average Joe is still too burnt from 2000 & 2008 to get back in. When they do, combined with the flows into the US, we'll see blow off tops in the Dow (i think 23000 was first target, then onto 32000).

[OROBTC]

Here's an interesting one - negative rates in Europe are having the opposite desired effect: savings rates are actually increasing.

This says that the average person cannot be dissuaded from what they see on a daily basis in their lives.

Despite NIRP "household savings rates have also risen. For Switzerland and Sweden this appears to have happened at the tail end of 2013 (before the oil price decline). As the BIS have highlighted, ultra-low rates may perversely be driving a greater propensity for consumers to save as retirement income becomes more uncertain."


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-29/bank-america-looks-europes-record-%E2%82%AC26-trillion-negative-yielding-debt-stunned-what-i

This stands against some commentators who I follow that suggest the EU is actually making the necessary reforms needed to allow it to exit the quagmire first. That remains to be seen, but always good to look at differing opinions.

They are saving, I am saving too, but they are not saving in a bank.

Who is so foolish to put all his money in a bank? Especially in a country where the debt is like 500% like in Japan or Ireland, these will go bankrupt sooner or later.

I have money in bank but if the interest rates will decline further (which they will) I`ll get it out.

I am too, with gold and bitcoin as my government hedge. But this goes against the intended outcomes of ZIRP and NIRP, ie to force money to be spent. Probably why most theoretical economics that use outdated modelling (The Fed) are wrong in the wild. Kind of heroic in a way, that the masses instinctively know something is amiss and that crackpot policy and blabbering media cannot change the sentiment. This is also something that Armstrong recognised; that there is no bubble in stocks as Average Joe is still too burnt from 2000 & 2008 to get back in. When they do, combined with the flows into the US, we'll see blow off tops in the Dow (i think 23000 was first target, then onto 32000).

My family and I are, and have been for a couple of years now, saving at a prodigious rate.  We are spending LESS, even with NIRP/ZIRP.  So in a sense, we are following a similar logic as the Europeans you mention.

Yes, gold and BTC are a pair of good & complementary ways to hedge against .gov.  Might want to add some CA$H, as in a pinch, CA$H will be accepted almost everywhere (for a while), whereas BTC and precious metals might not.

[RealBitcoin]

My family and I are, and have been for a couple of years now, saving at a prodigious rate.  We are spending LESS, even with NIRP/ZIRP.  So in a sense, we are following a similar logic as the Europeans you mention.

Yes, gold and BTC are a pair of good & complementary ways to hedge against .gov.  Might want to add some CA$H, as in a pinch, CA$H will be accepted almost everywhere (for a while), whereas BTC and precious metals might not.

ZIRP is coming to my country too, the currency got devalued 70% in 10 years versus gold, and that was under 7% interest.

If they push ZIRP (currently ~1% interest) , it will be hyperinflation 100%.

It's just crazy, I went shopping a few hours ago, and noticed several price increases in basic goods (I have a good memory and remember previous prices), and its increasing about every 1-2 weeks. The sheeple have no idea what is coming

However the hyperinflation I think will be global, and its coming very soon, so be prepared and dont miss out the lifeboat

[OROBTC]

...

rpietila and others interested in Bitcoin startups may have some more choices soon.  bitcointalker RodeoX just posted an SEC notice that crowdfunding will now be easier here in the USA.  Here's his thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1233139.0

This might be a wonderful things, both for Bitcoin entrepreneurs as well as small investors who would like to get in at "the bottom floor".


But: investing in very small startup companies is very risky, I have been there and have the battle-scars to show it.

[jehst]

...

rpietila and others interested in Bitcoin startups may have some more choices soon.  bitcointalker RodeoX just posted an SEC notice that crowdfunding will now be easier here in the USA.  Here's his thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1233139.0

This might be a wonderful things, both for Bitcoin entrepreneurs as well as small investors who would like to get in at "the bottom floor".


But: investing in very small startup companies is very risky, I have been there and have the battle-scars to show it.

We've had the opportunity to invest in small startup companies with Havelock Investments for years. 99% of the companies went broke. <1% of them (e.g. ASICMiner) turned people into millionaires.

[THX 1138]

I see that today Armstrong has a link to a "Money Week" article from July which principally relates to the current UK property market but also outlines his background and the development of the ECM.

"I’m cynical about cycles – but there’s something to this"

http://moneyweek.com/is-the-uk-property-market-facing-an-18-year-slump/

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38700

[jehst]

I see that today Armstrong has a link to a "Money Week" article from July which principally relates to the current UK property market but also outlines his background and the development of the ECM.

So the UK housing market is going to have a humongous crash?

[OROBTC]

...

Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart wrote a seminal book a few years ago: This Time is Different.  It is about sovereign defaults over the past 800 years.  They chose this period as there was good documentation.  It is an excellent book, though not exactly poolside reading.

But, sovereign defaults have been going on a long time.  Martin Armstrong discusses one of the earliest ones for which there are records:

"First Sovereign Debt Default 4th Century BC"

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38812

Various Greek city-states defaulted on their loans.  In the same article, Armstrong discusses that even Lydia (the first country to produce MONETARY COINS) defaulted by making their gold coins smaller.  Other powers subsequently (Rome, Byzantium) went on to defaults by adulterating their silver coins.

Highly recommended.

[THX 1138]

So the UK housing market is going to have a humongous crash?

Following a collapse of leverage in the UK and elsewhere. Though, with there being such a shortage of properties in the UK housing market, possibly not as much of a fall as some other locations due to comparative scarcity.

I noticed this observation amongst the comments under the Money Week article:

"...Someone once said to me, a person with a $100m net worth, will buy homes in London, New York and Paris, but a person with a net worth of $10m will buy a property in London first..."

[OROBTC]

So the UK housing market is going to have a humongous crash?

Following a collapse of leverage in the UK and elsewhere. Though, with there being such a shortage of properties in the UK housing market, possibly not as much of a fall as some other locations due to comparative scarcity.

I noticed this observation amongst the comments under the Money Week article:

"...Someone once said to me, a person with a $100m net worth, will buy homes in London, New York and Paris, but a person with a net worth of $10m will buy a property in London first..."

Armstrong also put up this item today, on prospects for property in London:

"London Property Market"

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38700

Does not look too good.

There is also a link at Armstrong's piece to that "Money Week" article that goes into the UK property market as well as some biographical information on Armstrong.

[sidhujag]

I see that today Armstrong has a link to a "Money Week" article from July which principally relates to the current UK property market but also outlines his background and the development of the ECM.

"I’m cynical about cycles – but there’s something to this"

http://moneyweek.com/is-the-uk-property-market-facing-an-18-year-slump/

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38700

Looks bullish to me.. Similar to last ecm cycle which was supposed to be bearish but made new highs then exploded for bullish ecm cycle.. We made a new high for a 2015 ecm peak so i wouldnt be surprised if it grinded higher for 2 years and exploded up for a 2019 peak in ecm again..

[TPTB_need_war]

Of course. Remember I wrote it would bounce up to $380 max (after hitting my $315 target exactly this summer and declining) on a bounce. Gold bounced first, and now Bitcoin follows. Both are headed to lower lows.

We've arrive at $390-450 depending on exchange. What now?

The general range of where it would top was $380 - $440. $380 was the limit stop-loss position assuming I was leveraged short (but I am not and I would have exited my shorts after the fall from $315 to mid-$200s last summer). Above that range then the technical patterns I was using no longer hold. That was all documented in kLee's PnF thread in the Speculation forum some months ago. You can verify there.

As to whether this could mean a low below $150 is no longer possible, Gold rallied then wavered and still seems poised to drop this Spring to make lows $850 or below. Bitcoin is more volatile, so this bounce could be another bull trap and I lean to that interpretation. Looks like hot money in China moving from one sector to the next. But I could be wrong of course and Bitcoin could be on the way to new highs. It is possible the Chinese are going to be speculating on Bitcoin since their real estate market died and they need new speculations. Perhaps this wasn't factored into Armstrong's model as gold would be much more difficult for the Chinese to see the sort of crazy price movement as they see in BTC. But I haven't really studied the volume at all. One would think the real estate market in China is orders-of-magnitude than the float in Bitcoin.

Sorry I don't have good information and at the moment my head is deep in this other stuff. So I will say my stops were hit, but I don't have good research to comment intelligently beyond that.

I will tell you that I am frantically trying to convert some BTC to dollars.

Edit: this is the wrong thread to be discussing this. I will be copying this post to the Martin Armstrong thread and deleting it here. I will be deleting this off-topic posts from this thread.

I note two recent blogs Armstrong mentions the gold "benchmark targets" which are for a Spring bottom. So I still tend to believe Bitcoin will top out and head back down for a final low below $150. I am taking profits into $dollars now.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38914
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38918

And he mentions again gold has not yet bottomed:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38929

...

TPTB

I read about some kind of Ponzi scheme going on in The Philippines called something like "MMM", and spread around by YouTube videos (weird, I know).

Is there something like this going on over there?  You're the best one I know offhand to report on this.

BTC was at $360 (up almost 10% just today).  Maybe time to spend some...?

TPTB is probably wondering how could he get so wrong his prediction about the $100 Bitcoin price which according to him will follow the early summer $300 price. Instead of the price is $390.00.

Except it again proceeded exactly to my prediction of a bounce up to the $380 - $440 range:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg12880333#msg12880333

I have no idea how you people manage to ignore the details of my predictions and then go spouting off slander when I am not around to read it. Luckily I came back here to set the record straight.

This past May I predicted the rise to $315 (exactly!) and then a fall down again. I have maintained that Bitcoin will make final lower lows (< $150) roughly on target with Armstrong's benchmark targets for gold, which is in the Spring of 2016.

You will even find where I have been predicting a bounce in Bitcoin since August or so, when gold started to bounce. I can't fathom how you forgot that?

Nothing has changed, except if Bitcoin moves higher into the $500s, then the technicals I was using to target a $380 - $440 bull trap bounce would be wrong. But that doesn't necessary change anything about the < $150 low coming.

Btw, I am selling as fast as I can now!

Let's see who gets the last laugh on this one.

[suda123]

Of course. Remember I wrote it would bounce up to $380 max (after hitting my $315 target exactly this summer and declining) on a bounce. Gold bounced first, and now Bitcoin follows. Both are headed to lower lows.

We've arrive at $390-450 depending on exchange. What now?

The general range of where it would top was $380 - $440. $380 was the limit stop-loss position assuming I was leveraged short (but I am not and I would have exited my shorts after the fall from $315 to mid-$200s last summer). Above that range then the technical patterns I was using no longer hold. That was all documented in kLee's PnF thread in the Speculation forum some months ago. You can verify there.

As to whether this could mean a low below $150 is no longer possible, Gold rallied then wavered and still seems poised to drop this Spring to make lows $850 or below. Bitcoin is more volatile, so this bounce could be another bull trap and I lean to that interpretation. Looks like hot money in China moving from one sector to the next. But I could be wrong of course and Bitcoin could be on the way to new highs. It is possible the Chinese are going to be speculating on Bitcoin since their real estate market died and they need new speculations. Perhaps this wasn't factored into Armstrong's model as gold would be much more difficult for the Chinese to see the sort of crazy price movement as they see in BTC. But I haven't really studied the volume at all. One would think the real estate market in China is orders-of-magnitude than the float in Bitcoin.

Sorry I don't have good information and at the moment my head is deep in this other stuff. So I will say my stops were hit, but I don't have good research to comment intelligently beyond that.

I will tell you that I am frantically trying to convert some BTC to dollars.

Edit: this is the wrong thread to be discussing this. I will be copying this post to the Martin Armstrong thread and deleting it here. I will be deleting this off-topic posts from this thread.

I note two recent blogs Armstrong mentions the gold "benchmark targets" which are for a Spring bottom. So I still tend to believe Bitcoin will top out and head back down for a final low below $150. I am taking profits into $dollars now.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38914
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38918

And he mentions again gold has not yet bottomed:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38929

...

TPTB

I read about some kind of Ponzi scheme going on in The Philippines called something like "MMM", and spread around by YouTube videos (weird, I know).

Is there something like this going on over there?  You're the best one I know offhand to report on this.

BTC was at $360 (up almost 10% just today).  Maybe time to spend some...?

TPTB is probably wondering how could he get so wrong his prediction about the $100 Bitcoin price which according to him will follow the early summer $300 price. Instead of the price is $390.00.

Except it again proceeded exactly to my prediction of a bounce up to the $380 - $440 range:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg12880333#msg12880333

I have no idea how you people manage to ignore the details of my predictions and then go spouting off slander when I am not around to read it. Luckily I came back here to set the record straight.

This past May I predicted the rise to $315 (exactly!) and then a fall down again. I have maintained that Bitcoin will make final lower lows (< $150) roughly on target with Armstrong's benchmark targets for gold, which is in the Spring of 2016.

You will even find where I have been predicting a bounce in Bitcoin since August or so, when gold started to bounce. I can't fathom how you forgot that?

Nothing has changed, except if Bitcoin moves higher into the $500s, then the technicals I was using to target a $380 - $440 bull trap bounce would be wrong. But that doesn't necessary change anything about the < $150 low coming.

Btw, I am selling as fast as I can now!

Let's see who gets the last laugh on this one.

WHAT IF, WHAT IF TPTB WAS REALLY AN AGENT MULTIPLE PEOPLE RUNNNNNNNNNNN

EDIT: if your wrong, its a win for me, if your right, its a win for me senpai.

if your wrong I get monay, if your right your my source 99%

[suda123]

Of course. Remember I wrote it would bounce up to $380 max (after hitting my $315 target exactly this summer and declining) on a bounce. Gold bounced first, and now Bitcoin follows. Both are headed to lower lows.

We've arrive at $390-450 depending on exchange. What now?

The general range of where it would top was $380 - $440. $380 was the limit stop-loss position assuming I was leveraged short (but I am not and I would have exited my shorts after the fall from $315 to mid-$200s last summer). Above that range then the technical patterns I was using no longer hold. That was all documented in kLee's PnF thread in the Speculation forum some months ago. You can verify there.

As to whether this could mean a low below $150 is no longer possible, Gold rallied then wavered and still seems poised to drop this Spring to make lows $850 or below. Bitcoin is more volatile, so this bounce could be another bull trap and I lean to that interpretation. Looks like hot money in China moving from one sector to the next. But I could be wrong of course and Bitcoin could be on the way to new highs. It is possible the Chinese are going to be speculating on Bitcoin since their real estate market died and they need new speculations. Perhaps this wasn't factored into Armstrong's model as gold would be much more difficult for the Chinese to see the sort of crazy price movement as they see in BTC. But I haven't really studied the volume at all. One would think the real estate market in China is orders-of-magnitude than the float in Bitcoin.

Sorry I don't have good information and at the moment my head is deep in this other stuff. So I will say my stops were hit, but I don't have good research to comment intelligently beyond that.

I will tell you that I am frantically trying to convert some BTC to dollars.

Edit: this is the wrong thread to be discussing this. I will be copying this post to the Martin Armstrong thread and deleting it here. I will be deleting this off-topic posts from this thread.

I note two recent blogs Armstrong mentions the gold "benchmark targets" which are for a Spring bottom. So I still tend to believe Bitcoin will top out and head back down for a final low below $150. I am taking profits into $dollars now.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38914
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38918

And he mentions again gold has not yet bottomed:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38929

...

TPTB

I read about some kind of Ponzi scheme going on in The Philippines called something like "MMM", and spread around by YouTube videos (weird, I know).

Is there something like this going on over there?  You're the best one I know offhand to report on this.

BTC was at $360 (up almost 10% just today).  Maybe time to spend some...?

TPTB is probably wondering how could he get so wrong his prediction about the $100 Bitcoin price which according to him will follow the early summer $300 price. Instead of the price is $390.00.

Except it again proceeded exactly to my prediction of a bounce up to the $380 - $440 range:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg12880333#msg12880333

I have no idea how you people manage to ignore the details of my predictions and then go spouting off slander when I am not around to read it. Luckily I came back here to set the record straight.

This past May I predicted the rise to $315 (exactly!) and then a fall down again. I have maintained that Bitcoin will make final lower lows (< $150) roughly on target with Armstrong's benchmark targets for gold, which is in the Spring of 2016.

You will even find where I have been predicting a bounce in Bitcoin since August or so, when gold started to bounce. I can't fathom how you forgot that?

Nothing has changed, except if Bitcoin moves higher into the $500s, then the technicals I was using to target a $380 - $440 bull trap bounce would be wrong. But that doesn't necessary change anything about the < $150 low coming.

Btw, I am selling as fast as I can now!

Let's see who gets the last laugh on this one.

Actually reading your whole post twice is scary, the forum source I go to has an huge influx of random bitcoin posters and economic collapse posts, its a stock forum mostly. And usually when those posters or fud arrive the opposite usually happens 1-2 weeks after. There spamming buy bitcoin etc.

when bitcoin was around 200 there were posts spammed degrading bitcoin and reasons not to buy it, then the opposite happend 2 weeks later.

I usually use FUD to do the opposite but I feel your right in my gut feeling, I just wish you weren't correct LOL.

[bigtimespaghetti]

Regardless of your views of TPTB's predictions, parabolic curves are to be sold into. It's hard to do, but time to reign in our emotions guys and make the right decisions.

[sidhujag]

Just do opposite of what ppl tell you.. Based on that ive been saying $200s were the low and litecoin didnt hit target which doesnt stop bitcoin but may hold it back... Id say we can topple $1k then back down to $300 for litecoin (alt coins) final bottoming.. Thats just me.

But important thing is not to sell btc as it bottomed out, rather to buy alts at the right time. Btc can goto $100k for all i know but ltc will be back.