Martin Armstrong Discussion

[tabnloz]

I understand what he is referring to when it comes to time and price. In the example I gave it was simply Euro vs USD, nothing more complicated. Admittedly, his timing wasn't definite but it was pretty clear that he expected it to breakdown soon, certainly not years later, as he has now adjusted it to.

Also he was never convicted (certainly not in an open court with a jury of his peers, but rather the corrupt Goldman Sachs-affiliated judge kicked out all the media!). He was held illegally in contempt-of-court for 7 years because he refused to turn over the source code to his computer model to Goldman Sachs. And when they found out that his case was about to be heard by the Supreme Court, they had him beat up and his teeth knocked out in prison so that he would accede to a plea bargain deal. He was coerced.

Have you ever wondered if MA was held in contempt not because he refused to turn over the source code to his supercomputer... but there is NONE to begin with, and he is trying to salvage his last ounce of dignity & leave an exit door for himself, so that he can still continue to hold conferences & sell the world a story about the future like what he is doing now?

Sure, a single father with an ageing mother and young children is going to, selfishly, subject himself to 7 years in prison, without a defined end, in order to preserve his reputation. The items that were not handed over were the source code, bust of JC and gold coins. This is all explained by his lawyer in the doco.

There are some valid criticisms of MA of which your example above is not one. Some are aired in this thread, some are alluded to in the doco (one of his employees briefly mentions MA's liking to stretch the truth of a story). TPTB also mentions his flaws re: programming.

One thing I don't get re: haters. MA is not the only public figure out there predicting a sovereign debt crisis, although he has been banging on about it for a few years. In fact there are a number of well respected commentators also saying exactly that. As I have mentioned before Carmen Reinhart, Jim Rickards are but two. Then there are the Austrians like Mike Maloney, the perma bears like Schiff etc. All of these people (excepting Reinhart) have also changed their forecasts or been wrong on some calls.

I think with MA the stigma of jail time and being labelled a fraud is something that many people cannot overcome. He also speaks with a conviction / stubborness that seems to irritate many. And claims to have an almost omnipotent computer model really strikes a nerve

[TPTB_need_war]

Oh here we go again. You think if you keep repeating something, it somehow will turn into facts. Show me the documentation and everything else that prove your and MA’s claims. I brought to you several sources on which I based my conclusion here

I did innumerable times present all of this documentation. Go read all of AnonyMint's archives. Then come back in one month after you are done.

Also you could watch the movie about Armstrong which was vetted by the attorneys of the fact insurance company. I already told you that, but you refuse to go buy the movie.

Please stop trolling. It is not my job to repeat again what I already provided in my archives. It is your job to stop whining and go do your homework.

The so called "facts" you claim to present are very poorly researched with very loose comb that has already demonstrated you don't even comprehend what he has been writing, and thus are not the facts. I will not go backwards to resummarize all the posts I did over 3 years. You go read them and learn.

MA is not God and he is not perfect. But you are slandering with errors. As well you have no objectivity because you have clearly formed an opinion before you even started your "research" as evident by the way you attack all of us by implying we are religious nutcases.

And doing it from a newbie account and you won't tell us who you are. You are not even confident enough to put your personal reputation on the line, yet you put MA's reputation on the line. Everyone knows my real identity.

Do you understand that you are wasting and consuming my very scarce and important time. And this is making me and others here angry.

Please stop trolling. Please.

You should really start learning how to read, otherwise it’s going to get even worse. All you mentioned is exactly what MA claims.  He claims that he is dealing with empirical science like physics. That’s why he always brings a lot of bs on Mandelbrot set and other stuff everywhere regardless of any relevance. He claims that markets are not random walk and everything not only can be predicted but is predicted by him and\or his computer (which nobody has ever seen). He also claims that all those variables are just noise, market manipulations don’t exist\or don’t affect markets, natural disasters go in cycles and therefore can be predicted and are predicted by him and so on. That’s precisely what he is selling: the claim that markets can be predicted like physics and is predicted by him and only by him\his computer.

And predicting quite accurately inspite of your inability to understand what he has predicted.

I already refuted you nonsense about his real estate prediction being wrong. His chart on the real estate has never changed. It always predicted a bounce from 2007 to 2012, but not to new highs in internationally inflation adjusted value. You don't pay attention to that detail. He model is global, not domestic so it uses international inflation adjusted value.

You decided that what he does is impossible, but you didn't decide that based on objectivity science and research, but just because your opinion is that what Armstrong does is impossible.

Real Estate Cycles & International Value
Posted on January 21, 2016 by Martin Armstrong   

Case Shiller 1890


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, your real estate cycle turned up from 1955. It does not match the Case-Shiller index which peaked in 1890s and bottomed in 1920 and then began to rally after 1940 into the 1955 period. Something seem strange with that index given the huge Florida real estate bubble which burst in 1927. Can you explain why the Case-Shiller seems to be off so much? Here is a chart that has been going around the Web.

Thanks



ANSWER: This is the typical problem with people creating an index and then trying to extend it back in time. They ALWAYS ignore the currency and project purely a domestic view. During the 1890s, J.P. Morgan had to bail out the U.S. Treasury for it was dead broke. As people feared the government would declare bankruptcy, private assets rose in NOMINAL terms. This was matched by the massive exit of foreign capital from the USA.

Florida-1The Case-Shiller index bottoms in 1920, but this was the point of a massive rise in the dollar’s value. Foreign capital poured into the USA to park because of World War I. This, in turn, led to wild speculation in Florida, which as you correctly stated, burst in 1927. Because rhis isdex is national, it also suppresses regional booms. As real estate peaked in Florida, the hot money then shifted to stocks creating the Phase Transition into 1929. It was this capital flows between asset classes into stocks where that concentration led to the 1929 bubble.

The Case-Shiller index, which suddenly rose from the Great Depression, does not take into account the dollar devaluation that sparked that rise as it did in equities. That was virtually a 60% devaluation of the dollar that moved it from $20 to $35 on a gold standard by FDR. Was that rise “real” or currency related? Sorry, the real rise begins post-war from 1955. That was the real housing boom.

The Case-Shiller does not accurately reflect the changes in currency. One must look at everything in terms of international value before they can see if they really made money or just broke even because the currency declined. From a value perspective, the 1929 high was more than three times that of the 1890s. So the high of the 1890s was purely a rise due to the collapse in the dollar; it was the hallmark of the panic of 1893 and was best expressed in Grover Cleveland’s speech before Congress.

We use international value rather than nominal local currency. If you fail to use the international value, the end result will always be erroneous for you will NEVER see when foreign capital will rush in or flee. You simply must look at the world in this manner or you will lose your shirt and everything else. Those who thought gold was in a bull market after the 1980 Crash, lost a lot because they failed to grasp international value.

[TPTB_need_war]

the following zerohedge like article timing couldnt be worse, with the mkt ripping up due to Japanese NIRP the next morning on Jan 29th, Fri.  

Is a Slingshot Move Setting Up? dated Jan 28th, Thurs.

We have penetrated last year’s low in the cash S&P500, but not in the Dow yet. The Yearly Bearish does not come into play until we get to the bottom of the upward channel. Penetrating last year’s low is indeed setting the stage for the Slingshot. Everything on our models is clearly pointing to this trend extending into 2020, and instead of concluding by 2017 that will be the starting point.

We NEED the vast majority to get really bearish calling for the end of the world and declines of 50% to 90%. This is the fuel for the Slingshot we need in place, just as we saw in 1987.

He is writing about the prospect for the USA markets (a decline into a V bottom and slingshot rebound), which is within his long-standing prediction for the USD and US stocks to be the bullish as the rest of the world collapses (and capital runs to the USA for safe haven). He had two or three possible scenarios since at least 2012 which is the US stocks could pause around the 2015.75 ECM turn date, or they could phase transition up to the 28 - 40K top before the turn date. It became clear on the 2014 close (which btw he nailed the price of oil for the close at $54, predicted publicly in his blog when oil was $100+), that the former scenario was the most likely.

Thus he continues to predict accurately on the longer-term.

When you idiots don't even comprehend what MA is writing about, you have no place to come here and troll this thread with your ignorance and lack of comprehension.

Please stop trolling idiots.

[enosenose]

the following zerohedge like article timing couldnt be worse, with the mkt ripping up due to Japanese NIRP the next morning on Jan 29th, Fri.  

Is a Slingshot Move Setting Up? dated Jan 28th, Thurs.

We have penetrated last year’s low in the cash S&P500, but not in the Dow yet. The Yearly Bearish does not come into play until we get to the bottom of the upward channel. Penetrating last year’s low is indeed setting the stage for the Slingshot. Everything on our models is clearly pointing to this trend extending into 2020, and instead of concluding by 2017 that will be the starting point.

We NEED the vast majority to get really bearish calling for the end of the world and declines of 50% to 90%. This is the fuel for the Slingshot we need in place, just as we saw in 1987.

He is writing about the prospect for the USA markets (a decline into a V bottom and slingshot rebound), which is within his long-standing prediction for the USD and US stocks to be the bullish as the rest of the world collapses (and capital runs to the USA for safe haven). He had two or three possible scenarios since at least 2012 which is the US stocks could pause around the 2015.75 ECM turn date, or they could phase transition up to the 28 - 40K top before the turn date. It became clear on the 2014 close (which btw he nailed the price of oil for the close at $54, predicted publicly in his blog when oil was $100+), that the former scenario was the most likely.

Thus he continues to predict accurately on the longer-term.

When you idiots don't even comprehend what MA is writing about, you have no place to come here and troll this thread with your ignorance and lack of comprehension.

Please stop trolling idiots.

we are not trolls or idiots... or market newbies & revealing who are you in real life is really secondary here to the discussion.

the discussion is intended to show the 2 sides of a coin.

if you intend to unquestioningly live in the MA fairy tale and can only parrot his writing & needs him to think for you for idea generation, so be it.




 

[TPTB_need_war]

the discussion is intended to show the 2 sides of a coin.

Then you need to first comprehend the subject matter, which is clear you haven't invested the effort to do so. Thus that makes you an idiot troll.

It would be like a 5 year coming up to a PhD and say the PhD is wrong about Theory of Chaos. At least show some respect that you do not understand what you are writing about.

You don't even comprehend what Armstrong has predicted.

[jehst]

the discussion is intended to show the 2 sides of a coin.

Then you need to first comprehend the subject matter, which is clear you haven't invested the effort to do so. Thus that makes you an idiot troll.

It would be like a 5 year coming up to a PhD and say the PhD is wrong about Theory of Chaos. At least show some respect that you do not understand what you are writing about.

You don't even comprehend what Armstrong has predicted.

You are being rude

[TPTB_need_war]

the discussion is intended to show the 2 sides of a coin.

Then you need to first comprehend the subject matter, which is clear you haven't invested the effort to do so. Thus that makes you an idiot troll.

It would be like a 5 year coming up to a PhD and say the PhD is wrong about Theory of Chaos. At least show some respect that you do not understand what you are writing about.

You don't even comprehend what Armstrong has predicted.

You are being rude

No the offtopic/unresearched trolls are rude. And I am speaking the frank truth.

Political correctness is a dumbing down disease.

Note I am working on the conceptual issue of why that sock puppet user with no reputation and who is noise for us can even reach this sub-community of ours in this thread.

If that attention model issue is solved, then I won't need to be frank, because you all won't be able to troll me and the likeminded sub-community.

Within the sub-community that I belong to in this thread, there are some who doubt MA (I even have my doubts and especially about short-term trading) who I have coexisted with (e.g. CoinCube, OROBTC) because they don't slander MA with very poor comprehension of what MA has written. They express doubts, but don't go on an all-out slander campaign because they know they have not read everything and do not have an objective understanding of what MA has predicted and written. They are observing.

If you slander MA you are in effect slandering me (and if you read AnonyMint's archives you would see I was arguing with MA in email in the past), because I popularized MA on Bitcointalk.org. And if you haven't read AnonyMint's archives, then you won't understand the reasons I came to my current opinion of MA's value to me.

To slander me and imply all of us are religious nutcases requires me to waste my scarce and important time to come here and dig up the research that you trolls were too lazy to comprehend before you started your troll campaign.

Please get out of this thread's sub-community (I am not referring to other threads) if you can't maintain a balance of objectivity and fairness to those in this sub-community who have done a lot of research and thinking on the matter and find value here in this MA thread. You can create your own MA slander thread if you want.

[DigiLab]

TPTB, not everybody can think the same, which is actually per MA as well. And that is actually not bad, since then there is always someone to trade against. So, let them be, and one doesn't really need to get emotional in trying to prove that he is right. I don't quite favor when I see a talent getting wasted by responding in an emotional manner to whatever other points of view.  That being said though, I don't mind parts of the responses, since in your refutations a useful information can be found. In addition to this, your other posts where you are describing MA analysis, and also providing your own, are very, very welcome.
From my point of view, being an engineer, the approach is to try to understand things first and them come to the conclusions by yourself, vs. just interpreting things which makes one to be nothing more than a follower. And on the subject of economic matters, MA is the only one I have identified that explains economic matters in the understandable fashion. I haven't seen yet any other person, or economic theory for that matter, that can come close to MA. At this moment actually I wish I could have found out about MA sooner.

AltcoinUK, I'm thinking to start playing on the stock market, and this is because of the confidence gained in MA. As an electronic engineer I do have input into some of the semiconductor companies, and actually I have chosen some where I would like to put my money.
So your comments regarding the trading are very welcomed. At the moment I have no trading experience whatsoever. Fellow engineers who are actually doing some trading (not by profession though), recommended to me "thinkorswim" trading platform. I'm hoping I'll find some time to learn the platform in order to be able to do the actual trading.

[sidhujag]

TPTB, not everybody can think the same, which is actually per MA as well. And that is actually not bad, since then there is always someone to trade against. So, let them be, and one doesn't really need to get emotional in trying to prove that he is right. I don't quite favor when I see a talent getting wasted by responding in an emotional manner to whatever other points of view.  That being said though, I don't mind parts of the responses, since in your refutations a useful information can be found. In addition to this, your other posts where you are describing MA analysis, and also providing your own, are very, very welcome.
From my point of view, being an engineer, the approach is to try to understand things first and them come to the conclusions by yourself, vs. just interpreting things which makes one to be nothing more than a follower. And on the subject of economic matters, MA is the only one I have identified that explains economic matters in the understandable fashion. I haven't seen yet any other person, or economic theory for that matter, that can come close to MA. At this moment actually I wish I could have found out about MA sooner.

AltcoinUK, I'm thinking to start playing on the stoctk market, and this is because of the confidence gained in MA. As an electronic engineer I do have input into some of the semiconductor companies, and actually I have chosen some where I would like to put my money.
So your comments regarding the trading are very welcomed. At the moment I have no trading experience whatsoever. Fellow engineers who are actually doing some trading (not by profession though), recommended to me "thinkorswim" trading platform. I'm hoping I'll find some time to learn the platform in order to be able to do the actual trading.

it will take you 10 yrs to become profitable i suggest hodl a coin

[altcoinUK]

AltcoinUK, I'm thinking to start playing on the stock market, and this is because of the confidence gained in MA. As an electronic engineer I do have input into some of the semiconductor companies, and actually I have chosen some where I would like to put my money.
So your comments regarding the trading are very welcomed. At the moment I have no trading experience whatsoever. Fellow engineers who are actually doing some trading (not by profession though), recommended to me "thinkorswim" trading platform. I'm hoping I'll find some time to learn the platform in order to be able to do the actual trading.

Firstly, I am not an expert nor a trader with a serious portfolio. As I said my trade is normally limited to 200 points which requires a £15K margin and I never do more than 3 trades at a time, so normally I don't risk more than £50K at any given time (plus the money is required to have hedges, because I always try to hedge to mitigate the risk). As you know there are traders and fund managers with millions £ exposure to the market at any given time - better to listen them and not me about the market.  
The size of trade is important, because I - as a retail trader - can't tell you about the brokerage conditions which is exclusive to larger trades. It is important, because if you risk more, like £200k then you could get different conditions from the broker. I don't want to mislead you that I am an expert. The experts and serious traders can see that I am not. Additionally, we have established in this thread already that nobody knows what's going to happen in sort term, nobody can predict where will be for example DJIA/SPX at the end of next Friday.
 
I am not qualified to give an investment advice, but with a good intention I would suggest to be careful with semiconductors like ATML or TXN or LLTC. Apart from the effects of the often fast changing technological market which could make semiconductor stocks even more volatile, they are susceptible to all kind of doggy factors like China news. From time to time there are always acquisition news which makes them even more volatile (many of the acquisition news/rumours are not even real but they still move the price). That's why I don't like individual stocks and I normally trade with indexes. Still, there are obviously lots of risks. For example in the last two weeks only my WTI hedge saved my trades and consequently prevented to loss money. I couldn't figure out the one day up other day down volatility of DJI and SPX in the last two weeks.

You need to decide what will be your trade? Spread betting, options or you will just buy the stock as a long term investment? Once you decided how do you want to trade then you need a broker. This could be a conventional or online broker. If you start with smaller money then you could trust any established online broker. They are not going to cheat you nor there is a big risk if they go out of business. There are lots of online brokers with very nice trading software. I have never heard of the "thinkorswim" platform so I can't comment on them, but there are many others reputable online brokers.

Good luck with your trading!

[TPTB_need_war]

TPTB, not everybody can think the same, which is actually per MA as well. And that is actually not bad, since then there is always someone to trade against. So, let them be, and one doesn't really need to get emotional in trying to prove that he is right. I don't quite favor when I see a talent getting wasted by responding in an emotional manner to whatever other points of view.

I explained that he is attacking my reputation. I must respond because I have a reputation here. Of course if I was unknown here and focused on my usual engineering, I wouldn't waste my time responding. Please re-read my prior post for my logic on this. I am not emotional. I am angry because he is forcing me to waste my time, by indirectly attacking my reputation, since I am the one who introduced the entire Bitcointalk forum to MA.

sloanf read:

The same reasoning prevailed in my own case as written by Judge John Walker (Bush’s cousin). He actually wrote: “Thus, we have little difficulty concluding that the district court’s inherent power to order coercive civil confinement is of ancient and traditional origins.   Armstrong’s statutory arguments, however, present the question whether the district court still retains this power. ….  the exercise of the inherent power of lower federal courts can be limited by statute and rule … Nevertheless, the Supreme Court explained, “we do not lightly assume that Congress has intended to depart from established principles such as the scope of a court’s inherent power.” I got into the Supreme Court because Judge Sotomayor, now Supreme Court Justice, was on that panel and disagreed with Walker. Walker had the audacity to rule that there was no limit to the power of a federal judge to imprison anyone for life without a trial. Such people can only see the world through their own desire for absolute power. The decision in my case was no different from the lettres de cachet which sparked the French Revolution of the Writs of Assistance that inspired the American Revolution proving history repeats perpetually. Walker wrote:

We believe that Judge Sotomayor advances a similarly mistaken argument in her concurring opinion by arguing that there is no practical difference between one who is “incapable of complying” and one who “simply chooses not to do so.”   According to Judge Sotomayor, in either case, “there is a limit to how long [that person] can be incarcerated.”   We disagree.

Judge Walker then drove from the court, I believe drunk, and then killed a policeman directing traffic in the middle of the road. Most news stories have been erased from the internet. It seems they missed at least this on Wikipedia:

On the evening of October 17, 2006, while driving home, Judge Walker’s Ford Escape automobile struck a police officer, Daniel Picagli, who was directing traffic in a rainstorm at a road construction site for AT&T in New Haven, Connecticut.[21][22] There were no construction signs or traffic cones marking off the site.[23] Picagli died four days later on October 21, 2006. “He had been wearing a black raincoat and a reflective vest”.[24] Police Chief Francisco Ortiz said the “officers did not feel it was necessary to test Walker for drugs or alcohol”.[24] Walker stopped immediately, and New Haven police have said the cause was not related to drugs or alcohol.[25] A police investigation reported that Walker “was traveling at a slow speed through the dark and rainy construction site.”[26] The prosecutor declined to press charges, saying nothing indicated “intentional, negligent or reckless conduct” by Walker.

The police conceded they never tested him for being drunk just saying he appeared to be OK. A judge can even kill a policeman since he is higher on the political food chain.

If sloanf reads this entire thread and then reads all of AnonyMint's archives, he will find all the documentation to refute his slander. That is, if he is interested in truth.

[sloanf]

I did innumerable times present all of this documentation. Go read all of AnonyMint's archives. Then come back in one month after you are done.

Again, all you do is just making claims with nothing to back them up. Bring everything relevant here (not just random texts, opinions and your claims supported by nothing but your or MA’s claims) because this thread is for exactly that purpose and that’s what we are discussing here. And be specific.

Also you could watch the movie about Armstrong which was vetted by the attorneys of the fact insurance company. I already told you that, but you refuse to go buy the movie.

Again, I asked you to bring any proof you have

Again, do you have any evidence to support your claim? Any documents, articles, comments from insurance company\lawyers (if they do exist), media, etc. from which we could infer that qualified people did look into MA’s case and concluded that he did not cheat? If yes, bring them here. All we have so far is some film made by unknown people and shown in a very few locations to a very limited audience.

Yet you keep posting empty claims that some attorneys\insurance company (name them, where are their documents, interviews, comments) allegedly vetted something (what exactly?).

The so called "facts" you claim to present are very poorly researched with very loose comb that has already demonstrated you don't even comprehend what he has been writing, and thus are not the facts. I will not go backwards to resummarize all the posts I did over 3 years. You go read them and learn.

What exactly was “very poorly researched”? Articles from NYT and Bloomberg? Or the SEC documents? Or MA reports and posts I cited?

And doing it from a newbie account and you won't tell us who you are. You are not even confident enough to put your personal reputation on the line, yet you put MA's reputation on the line. Everyone knows my real identity.

I already addressed that here

Why do you hide behind a newbie sock puppet account? Who are you on this forum formerly and what is your reputation on this forum? Or who are you in real life, what is your real name? My real name is Shelby Moore III.

This is the first time I am on this forum. It does not matter who I am here or in real life since the topic is not about me. And not even about you.

but since you are so stupid let me go over it once again. Nobody gives a f about who you are. Nor does anyone care about your reputation even if you ever had one. People are here to examine facts and evidence about MA and his claims.

Do you understand that you are wasting and consuming my very scarce and important time. And this is making me and others here angry.

Again, nobody gives a damn about your time or whether you’re angry. People are here to find out facts on MA and form their opinion based on relevant and proven information (not on your empty claims, religious biases, outright stupidity, deep insecurities, etc). And I am here doing exactly what people are here for by bringing that information supported by facts and evidence, checking claims, asking questions and so on.

And predicting quite accurately inspite of your inability to understand what he has predicted.

I already refuted you nonsense about his real estate prediction being wrong. His chart on the real estate has never changed. It always predicted a bounce from 2007 to 2012, but not to new highs in internationally inflation adjusted value. You don't pay attention to that detail. He model is global, not domestic so it uses international inflation adjusted value.

How many times do we have to go through this? As with everything else, as we have seen above, you are not able to get things from the first/second/third time. Ok, let’s do it again.

That real estate picture that MA claims to have drawn in 1979 uses the Case-Shiller home price index. Back then there was nothing like “internationally inflation adjusted value“ and nowhere was it mentioned by MA or anybody. He started to exploit this trick relatively recently when it became obvious that he failed yet another of his numerous predictions so he had to cover his ass by making it up. Interestingly, he uses that IIM trick on real estate because, as he argues, real estate attracts global money but at the same time he does not use IIM when he makes predictions on the Dow, Gold, Nikkei and so on (which also attract global capital).

Now, if you compare the index and the picture, you’ll easily find out that they do not match (put it mildly). First, the index had been rising without any drop up until 2006 (the MA’s graph predicted drops after every 8.6 years). Second, the absolute high according to MA should have been reached in 2007.15, but in reality the S&P Case-Shiller topped in 2006 https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CSUSHPINSA, http://www.spindices.com/index-family/real-estate/sp-case-shiller, and the original Case-Shiller topped in 2005 http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data.htm
Third, the index significantly recovered and keeps rising, contrary to what MA predicted.

Here is another dirty trick that MA used. When real estate picked he did not say anything. Only after the crisis hit and real estate plunged he came out and claimed that he’d predicted the top. Not only that, he claimed that he predicted the top to the day referencing to (wait!) the S&P Reit index. Again, there was nothing about “internationally inflation adjusted value“ or any of such bs. But wait, there’s more. The S&P Reit includes not only home RE, but everything else such as residential, office, health-care, hotels, etc. In other words, from very beginning he used the Case-Shiller (only home RE). Then when it didn’t work out, he switched to the S&P Reit which tracks all RE, and now he switches again by bs people with a new trick called “internationally inflation adjusted value“.

I am curious to see what else is he going to come up with when his post-2015 forecast eventually fails.  

sloanf read:
Quote from: http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/42745

And?

[sloanf]

It became clear on the 2014 close (which btw he nailed the price of oil for the close at $54, predicted publicly in his blog when oil was $100+), that the former scenario was the most likely.

Thus he continues to predict accurately on the longer-term.

When you idiots don't even comprehend what MA is writing about, you have no place to come here and troll this thread with your ignorance and lack of comprehension.

Please stop trolling idiots.

Why do you still have to prove your stupidity and embarrass yourself in front of everybody over and over again if everything was clear long time ago?

and the list goes on...
So, not just 1%-10% wrong but wrong big time. Also, he missed the recent commodity collapse and particularly oil.

He likes to constantly bs people about how everything is connected, all asset prices are interlinked, etc. If that’s the case, then you can’t simply miss such a big move in oil price. Especially if you do have a computer model (as he claims) that tracks everything for you. Yet he missed it completely. He never warned about upcoming collapse. If fact, he predicted the opposite, right at the YTD peak http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/22328 (“It is poised to rally into 2017 and it appears this is lining up with our war models”). Wars are all over the place yet oil went down sharply. Even when the price declined substantially, he kept ignoring it. He only start mentioning oil when it came to 70.

Nevertheless, let me once again show everybody how stupid you are. Here http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/22328 already after the YTD-peak he said oil would rise into 2017 (the opposite to what happened). This proves beyond all doubts MA did not predict the collapse. Here in September when oil was at 90 he still did not see the upcoming collapse http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/23450 and even thought it might have been a plot against Russia. Here in November, oil at 80, he still does not get it http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/24733. And only here http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/25545 in December when oil collapsed below 65 he started to acknowledge ”a serious trend change is potentially on the horizon”. Notice, below 65, and not at 100+ as you claim.

Will you finally stop here before you drop to a new low?

[enosenose]

the discussion is intended to show the 2 sides of a coin.

Then you need to first comprehend the subject matter, which is clear you haven't invested the effort to do so. Thus that makes you an idiot troll.

It would be like a 5 year coming up to a PhD and say the PhD is wrong about Theory of Chaos. At least show some respect that you do not understand what you are writing about.

You don't even comprehend what Armstrong has predicted.

i see that you are deeply distressed... get a hold of your emotion.

[TPTB_need_war]

Notice how the trolls use newbie sock puppet accounts. And they entirely ignore what I wrote (did sloanf respond to the real estate post, did he read AnonyMint's archives, did he stop citing blog posts out-of-context, etc).

They will destroy the thread and there is nothing I can do to stop them.  Apparently someone (Goldman Sachs?) has paid them to slander MA and attempt to control perceptions.

I won't waste time fighting them in a social network (forum) which allows anonymous sock puppets to troll our sub-community.

sloanf states that I am stupid  everyone here knows I am not stupid, so I hope he realizes he just shot his credibility in the foot.

[TPTB_need_war]

Nevertheless, let me once again show everybody how stupid you are. Here http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/22328 already after the YTD-peak he said oil would rise into 2017 (the opposite to what happened).

You did not comprehend what he wrote there:

The USA is amazingly going to produce more oil that Saudi Arabia and Russia making it the largest producer in the world according to all the data so far with just Four years into the shale revolution.

[...]

Nevertheless, oil peaked intraday in 2009 but the highest yearly close came in 2011. It is poised to rally into 2017 and it appears this is lining up with our war models. We will be looking at this market and other in the near future. The patterns are interesting and the fundamentals may speak of increased supply in the USA, but the price may be driven by other events especially when we have people like Lindsey Graham willing to kill everyone’s children for his personal hatred of the US constitution and the world

What he was saying is that as the war model enters the hot war phase in 2017, oil may rally off the lows. And indeed this may still happen. His model has always been about private assets, USD, US stocks, and gold rallying in 2017 as the rest of the world sinks into an economic collapse cauldron and the Cycle of War. This was an orthogonal shorter-term cycle than the longer-term cycle which is that oil peaked in 2009 and would be on an overall downward trend towards $35 (then $25). Read more carefully. He didn't write that oil will rally "from now" into 2017. He stated only "to rally into 2017" meaning it is an event that his computer indicated would happen in 2017. That is a shorter-term cycle superimposed on the longer-term cycle which he stated was a peak in 2009.

I already said you do not comprehend what you are slandering. Get off my lawn idiot.

You continue to ignore the fact that MA's models involve multiple overlapping cycles.

Here in September when oil was at 90 he still did not see the upcoming collapse http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/23450 and even thought it might have been a plot against Russia. Here in November, oil at 80, he still does not get it http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/24733. And only here http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/25545 in December when oil collapsed below 65 he started to acknowledge ”a serious trend change is potentially on the horizon”. Notice, below 65, and not at 100+ as you claim.

Go find the blog post where oil was still $100+ and he predicted the $54 close for 2014. Also you are misconstruing what he is intending to convey in the above posts. The longer-term prediction was not changed by what he wrote in those posts.

In the first link MA wrote that if the $82 level is broken then a sharp decline will result (which is consistent with his prior prediction of a $54 closing for 2014):

The oil price has fallen in the past week for the first time since one and a half years under the $ 100 mark dropping to test the $90 level. On our models, the critical support lies at $92 and $82 going into 2015. A year-end closing below $92 will shift oil into a neutral position whereas a 2014 closing below $82 will warn of a sharp decline cannot be ruled out.

In the second post sloanf cited, he reiterates that his model calls for a lower in the $30 vicinity and he also refutes your claim above about the meaning of the 2017 rally which again clarifies will be after 2016 (and thus after the predicted decline from $100 to $54 closing for 2014 with an ultimate low $25 - $35)!

Crude oil has fallen to the $80 area and a monthly closing below $78 will signal a sharp drop into the $60 zone is likely. The long-term support actually begins at $57 and the major support which held previously is still there at the $32-31 zone. While we have the intraday high in 2008, the actual highest yearly closing was 2011 with the intraday high in gold. Here too we do not see any reversal in trend to the upside before 2016.

In the third link sloanf foamed out his sloppy, MA again reiterates the $50ish closing price for 2014:

The panic cycle was due this week. I have warned that a year-end closing below $75 will signal a serious trend change is potentially on the horizon. However, the critical support lies at $57. A year-end closing below this will signal a massive collapse a deflationary cycle will impact the oil producing regions.

sloanf is hallucinating.

How many times do we have to go through this?

My thought exactly. How many more times sloanf?

[suda123]

Nevertheless, let me once again show everybody how stupid you are. Here http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/22328 already after the YTD-peak he said oil would rise into 2017 (the opposite to what happened).

You did not comprehend what he wrote there:

The USA is amazingly going to produce more oil that Saudi Arabia and Russia making it the largest producer in the world according to all the data so far with just Four years into the shale revolution.

[...]

Nevertheless, oil peaked intraday in 2009 but the highest yearly close came in 2011. It is poised to rally into 2017 and it appears this is lining up with our war models. We will be looking at this market and other in the near future. The patterns are interesting and the fundamentals may speak of increased supply in the USA, but the price may be driven by other events especially when we have people like Lindsey Graham willing to kill everyone’s children for his personal hatred of the US constitution and the world

What he was saying is that as the war model enters the hot war phase in 2017, oil may rally off the lows. And indeed this may still happen. His model has always been about private assets, USD, US stocks, and gold rallying in 2017 as the rest of the world sinks into an economic collapse cauldron and the Cycle of War. This was an orthogonal shorter-term cycle than the longer-term cycle which is that oil peaked in 2009 and would be on an overall downward trend towards $35 (then $25). Read more carefully. He didn't write that oil will rally "from now" into 2017. He stated only "to rally into 2017" meaning it is an event that his computer indicated would happen in 2017. That is a shorter-term cycle superimposed on the longer-term cycle which he stated was a peak in 2009.

I already said you do not comprehend what you are slandering. Get off my lawn idiot.

You continue to ignore the fact that MA's models involve multiple overlapping cycles.

Here in September when oil was at 90 he still did not see the upcoming collapse http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/23450 and even thought it might have been a plot against Russia. Here in November, oil at 80, he still does not get it http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/24733. And only here http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/25545 in December when oil collapsed below 65 he started to acknowledge ”a serious trend change is potentially on the horizon”. Notice, below 65, and not at 100+ as you claim.

Go find the blog post where oil was still $100+ and he predicted the $54 close for 2014. Also you are misconstruing what he is intending to convey in the above posts. The longer-term prediction was not changed by what he wrote in those posts.

These things you bring up are not even conspiracy there just basic economic cycles, it only seems distorted because of social engineering and mainstream propaganda.

Let's be honest here the only real investments in investing is never 100%, anything 99% and below is just based on *faith/luck/etc* and can never be proven that is unless you are an insider.

I'm just disappointed instead of spending your time here you just don't short the S&P and get rich based on the information you possess, then network and mentor down with systems invested with that money instead of doing it alone.

[altcoinUK]

Notice how the trolls use newbie sock puppet accounts. And they entirely ignore what I wrote (did sloanf respond to the real estate post, did he read AnonyMint's archives, did he stop citing blog posts out-of-context, etc).

They will destroy the thread and there is nothing I can do to stop them.  Apparently someone (Goldman Sachs?) has paid them to slander MA and attempt to control perceptions.

I won't waste time fighting them in a social network (forum) which allows anonymous sock puppets to troll our sub-community.

sloanf states that I am stupid  everyone here knows I am not stupid, so I hope he realizes he just shot his credibility in the foot.

Don't be upset about these sockpuppets. They can't even afford $40 to watch the Armstrong movie.
It says a lot about them that they flood the thread with sockpuppet accounts.
When a sockpuppet is provoking you by saying that you are stupid then we just need to ignore them.

[TPTB_need_war]

These things you bring up are not even conspiracy there just basic economic cycles, it only seems distorted because of social engineering and mainstream propaganda.

Armstrong has on numerous occasions refuted the manipulation theory. Sorry even Goldman Sachs can't control the public opinion here in this thread with paid sockpuppet trolls. The entropy of the universe is unbounded.

Let's be honest here the only real investments in investing is never 100%, anything 99% and below is just based on *faith/luck/etc* and can never be proven that is unless you are an insider.

I'm just disappointed instead of spending your time here you just don't short the S&P and get rich based on the information you possess, then network and mentor down with systems invested with that money instead of doing it alone.

MA has not predicted a continuous decline in the S&P (or anything), nor a continuous rise in anything. Markets zigzag and shorting expires. You seem to not comprehend some basic facts about trading.

And sloanf also forgets there are shorter-term cycles superimposed on longer-term cycles.

[altcoinUK]

Which I don't understand, we supposed to be here more or less libertarians who question the status quo and don't subscribe to totalitarianism. I guess in the first place, the democratic and decentralised manner of Bitcoin - which is of course a myth, but that is an entirely different matter - brought us to this forum. So here we are in this libertarian, rebellious forum ... and Martin Armstrong's court case epitomises what libertarians and open minded individuals dislike in the government of this 21st century:  the institutionalised corruption, unfairness and abuse of power. All these are -  combined with the disgusting role of the current Goldman Sachs director Alan Cohen -  the very attributes of Armstrong's court case. And then the sockpuppet wankers make the conclusion that Armstrong is a convicted criminal. Oh dear ... what would be internet without these idiot trolls.