Martin Armstrong Discussion

[OROBTC]

...

Armstrong is back with two pieces hitting hard at the Trump campaign by Obama.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/evidence-hillary-was-briefed-by-obama-on-covert-abuse-of-power-to-target-trump/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/jarrett-from-within-white-house-may-have-launched-a-watergate-style-attack-on-trump-during-election/

The above looks illegal to me.  A big H/T to Martin Armstrong for digging up this additional information.

[iamnotback]

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/jarrett-from-within-white-house-may-have-launched-a-watergate-style-attack-on-trump-during-election/

Taken together with the above, here we go into chaos:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/americas-current-economy/governor-of-washington-repeating-the-arrogance-of-the-60s/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/democrat-v-republican/

Buckle-up folks. Extreme turbulence ahead...

This shit is getting real.

[Xester]

...

I am frankly surprised that the miners & lead developers did not see these problems coming (low capacity, small block sizes, etc.).  In many ways, BITCOIN was designed for the very long-term...  It's curious to see all the infighting over problem-solving happen.

I wonder that after they "solve" this/these, whether or not we will see problems down the road that, wait for it........., "they did not see coming."

*  *  *

For anyone wanting a break from the Segwit vs. BU vs. , I offer up the latest from Armstrong:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/europes-visa-war-with-usa-may-terminate-all-travel/

Will Europe cut off its nose to spite American face?  That would be stupid, but hey...  Italy & Greece would not like having huge losses of American tourists.

Well probably bitcoin was designed with an expectation that the reaction from the masses will be subtle only to find out that the number of people using bitcoin exceeds their expectation a lot. That is the reason why there is a very big problems on bitcoin since the current mining blocksize cannot cater the volume of transaction traffic. The imbalance has caused big trouble on the miners and the users of bitcoin.

[iamnotback]

 (nevertheless Armstrong's computer predicted the correct outcome and it is pointing to a Le Pen victory).

Source?

Or it's info from your Armstrong subscriber?
Cuz I remember you said that you unwillingly share Armstrong's subscriber info because it harms subscribers.

That is just my interpretation of my vague recollection of what he has been writing on his blogs. He mentions his computer predicted BREXIT, Trump, rise of third parties, civil unrest, Ukraine before it happened, etc. (which I verify to be true based on reading his blogs weekly since 2012). And he mentions that in the context of Le Pen victory becoming more plausible.

I am not releasing any more info from my subscriber contact. I did it once or twice to silence those who said Armstrong couldn't predict the future. And go look where gold is now as predicted.

[r0ach]

I am not releasing any more info from my subscriber contact. I did it once or twice to silence those who said Armstrong couldn't predict the future. And go look where gold is now as predicted.

He predicted nothing.  He said gold was going under $1000 and then it went up $140 instead.  The last metals drop was somebody dropping like $2 billion worth of paper silver that doesn't even exist all orchestrated by a single, non-aggregate market party.  So you're now trying to claim instead of predicting an aggregate market based on data, Armstrong simply psychically reads the mind of a single guy at the ESF who rigs markets.  The whole idea is laughable.  You can't predict non-aggregate markets, especially not with algorithms or TA - which is all Armstrong's scheme is - just some algo driven bot he made.

What happens if there was a run on the Comex tommorrow and price of metals went up 10x?  Would Armstrongs algo ever predict that?  Hell no.  He'll be standing there with his dick in his hand babbling about gold going under $1000 while the real market is no bid.  All the data he's feeding to his bot assumes the party that has manipulated metals for the last eon will continue to be able to do so forever without China and Russia buying it all, so when the manipulation inevitably fails, people who follow Armstrong will be the most blackswaned rubes on the planet.

Don't even give me that propaganda Armstrong pushes either about there being "no market manipulation".  There are currently more shorts on silver than ANYTIME in history.  They dump more shorts than the amount of metal produced in an entire year at once.  The entire purpose of the futures market is hedging.  If someone shorts that quantity of metals in one button press, it's obviously not hedging and is market manipulation.  It would be like someone naked shorting Apple from 130 to 70, there would be an immediate SEC investigation.  The fact there's never any investigations tells you everything.

Charts like the ones below going completely parabolic are exactly what you'd expect to see right before the system blows up too, reaching the limits of how far you can push naked shorting:

[sidhujag]

Tis funny to watch both of you, one is wrong about his predictions and the other pushing the gold agenda which is also wrong because it being an ideal form of currency has already passed, thats how the market works, its not backwards looking roach. We have already decided central rate targetting is much more efficient than gold from an economic perspective, regardless of how that experiment works out to, we have achieved more propsperity than we ever would have on a gold standard. Thus gold remains a SHTF safe haven and nothing more, basically a pump and dump between recessionary scares... and the chances of catching the ride up are far from maximized compared to a utility based safe haven such as bitcoin which is far more ideal money than anything else that exists.

[r0ach]

which is also wrong because it being an ideal form of currency has already passed, thats how the market works

I dunno what you're smoking but that's not how the market works at all.  The market works by coercion and has nothing to do with what's better or not.  What's theoretically the best on a drawing board doesn't factor into anything.  And I also think you are making an extreme error calling bitcoin an ideal form of money, when I don't think it's really even decentralized in the first place, nor will it sufficiently scale, so the entire thing is probably just a Rube Goldberg machine that's pointless.  

How can you call such a thing "ideal money"?  It's ridiculous.  Current cryptocurrency does not compete against metals whatsoever, and there's a very large chance that it might be impossible for them to do so.  They will always be Rube Goldberg machines - the equivalent of show and tell science class projects scaled up from middle school to grown man level, but still just as equally not groundbreaking and pointless.

[Traxo]

I am not releasing any more info from my subscriber contact. I did it once or twice to silence those who said Armstrong couldn't predict the future. And go look where gold is now as predicted.

He predicted nothing.  He said gold was going under $1000 and then it went up $140 instead.  

This is "once" I believe, I can't find second "leak":

He is not giving you the details, because you are not a paying subscriber. I know what he wrote in gold report for this week (although I am not a paying subscriber), and he is saying if we close the week above $1221 then there is a potential for $100 upside from there, else if we close the month below the monthly bearish reversal of $1243, then January will be the high for this deadcat bounce and February is a directional change and trading cycle month on his colored bar system.

[sidhujag]

which is also wrong because it being an ideal form of currency has already passed, thats how the market works

I dunno what you're smoking but that's not how the market works at all.  The market works by coercion and has nothing to do with what's better or not.  What's theoretically the best on a drawing board doesn't factor into anything.  And I also think you are making an extreme error calling bitcoin an ideal form of money, when I don't think it's really even decentralized in the first place, nor will it sufficiently scale, so the entire thing is probably just a Rube Goldberg machine that's pointless.  

How can you call such a thing "ideal money"?  It's ridiculous.  Current cryptocurrency does not compete against metals whatsoever, and there's a very large chance that it might be impossible for them to do so.  They will always be Rube Goldberg machines - the equivalent of show and tell science class projects scaled up from middle school to grown man level, but still just as equally not groundbreaking and pointless.

Market does not work by coercion i agree sometimes simple is better ala web stack sucks today but over time an ideal form of web technology will take over perhaps something like ipfs etc.. in the same way money will take a new shape as markets are always forward looking and not backwards.. any manipulation or coercion usually leads to bigger corrections and recessions.. see boj and snb.
Cryptocurrency offers more utility than gold can ever imagine and thus it is backwards to assume market will readjust to base itself on a metal that is just thought of as a safe haven.

[OROBTC]

which is also wrong because it being an ideal form of currency has already passed, thats how the market works

I dunno what you're smoking but that's not how the market works at all.  The market works by coercion and has nothing to do with what's better or not.  What's theoretically the best on a drawing board doesn't factor into anything.  And I also think you are making an extreme error calling bitcoin an ideal form of money, when I don't think it's really even decentralized in the first place, nor will it sufficiently scale, so the entire thing is probably just a Rube Goldberg machine that's pointless.  

How can you call such a thing "ideal money"?  It's ridiculous.  Current cryptocurrency does not compete against metals whatsoever, and there's a very large chance that it might be impossible for them to do so.  They will always be Rube Goldberg machines - the equivalent of show and tell science class projects scaled up from middle school to grown man level, but still just as equally not groundbreaking and pointless.

Market does not work by coercion i agree sometimes simple is better ala web stack sucks today but over time an ideal form of web technology will take over perhaps something like ipfs etc.. in the same way money will take a new shape as markets are always forward looking and not backwards.. any manipulation or coercion usually leads to bigger corrections and recessions.. see boj and snb.
Cryptocurrency offers more utility than gold can ever imagine and thus it is backwards to assume market will readjust to base itself on a metal that is just thought of as a safe haven.

Guys, hold both.

Since it is not clear at all that Bitcoin will survive long-term (maybe not even for 2017-2018 if the developers & miners let the problems destroy it), it is not wise to hold just BTC.

And since we do not know, exactly know, what the fate of gold is, it is not wise to hold just gold either.

Bitcoin offers a realistic possibility of a huge price movement up, but it is risky...

Gold offers about as good a financial insurance (safe haven) as exists, but the possible/probable upward price trajectory is not as dramatic (unless FOFOA is right).

For that matter, smart diversification suggests that holding some of stocks, bonds, real estate and other conventional assets is recommended.  Maybe less so now than earlier, but still smart if you have the money.

*  *  *

I am liking more and more iamnotback's suggestion to LEARN in the likely upcoming Knowledge Age.

[r0ach]

Cryptocurrency offers more utility than gold can ever imagine

The only purpose of metals as currency is to remove counter party risk while also satisfying a few other traits of money such as divisibility, durability, portability, fungibility, etc.  Bitcoin doesn't actually remove counter party risk at all.  It's also not fungible and any crypto that's not fungible is a permissioned ledger by default.  Nor is it a valid store of generational wealth like gold and silver because the entire thing can just blow up at random.  

Therefore, the only thing bitcoin really does better is portability and a bit better granularity (with the added inconvenience of giant technical burden).  In current state you have to be flat out lying to say bitcoin beats gold and silver as money.  It's clearly inferior and there is no evidence that relationship will change anytime soon (beyond wild claims by Anonymintcoin).  Bitcoin is only a currency and gold and silver are money; there's a big difference.

[sidhujag]

Cryptocurrency offers more utility than gold can ever imagine

The only purpose of metals as currency is to remove counter party risk while also satisfying a few other traits of money such as divisibility, durability, portability, fungibility, etc.  Bitcoin doesn't actually remove counter party risk at all.  It's also not fungible and any crypto that's not fungible is a permissioned ledger by default.  Nor is it a valid store of generational wealth like gold and silver because the entire thing can just blow up at random.  

Therefore, the only thing bitcoin really does better is portability and a bit better granularity (with the added inconvenience of giant technical burden).  In current state you have to be flat out lying to say bitcoin beats gold and silver as money.  It's clearly inferior and there is no evidence that relationship will change anytime soon (beyond wild claims by Anonymintcoin).  Bitcoin is only a currency and gold and silver are money; there's a big difference.

Bitcoin is better but cryptocurrency itself is CAN be better, this is just because I'm not sure that the race to energy efficiency is enough to classify as an asymptotical ideal currency metric when indirectly tying supply to an auditable "work" metric. Gold does not top cryptocurrency in any of the bolded properties, its unlimited supply that can be mined at random and thus value becomes random aswell, we don't know how much there actually is and how much there ever will be at any given time and its not controlled thus fiat is better than gold and bitcoin is better than fiat but another crypto might be better than bitcoin if and only if a more direct inflation/deflation mechanism design is seen to be better by the market such that it makes the indirect energy-efficiency race of miners irrelevant and classifies itself as an asymptotically more ideal form of money. Gold bugs are a dying breed they don't know why yet but it will be crystal clear soon enough.

Its growing right in your face roach, the market has already reacted and we would have seen it die off by now. Markets never look back remember that.

[pyata4ok]

Cryptocurrency offers more utility than gold can ever imagine

The only purpose of metals as currency is to remove counter party risk while also satisfying a few other traits of money such as divisibility, durability, portability, fungibility, etc.  Bitcoin doesn't actually remove counter party risk at all.  It's also not fungible and any crypto that's not fungible is a permissioned ledger by default.  Nor is it a valid store of generational wealth like gold and silver because the entire thing can just blow up at random.  

Therefore, the only thing bitcoin really does better is portability and a bit better granularity (with the added inconvenience of giant technical burden).  In current state you have to be flat out lying to say bitcoin beats gold and silver as money.  It's clearly inferior and there is no evidence that relationship will change anytime soon (beyond wild claims by Anonymintcoin).  Bitcoin is only a currency and gold and silver are money; there's a big difference.

Do you think that eternity for money or currency is bad? If you take for example gold, then its value was in the past and will be in the future. But who guarantees what bitcoin? I would not compare bitcoin with gold. They do not differ only in the fact that they have a limit and what he does not know yet.

[iamnotback]

Cryptocurrency offers more utility than gold can ever imagine

The only purpose of metals as currency is to remove counter party risk while also satisfying a few other traits of money such as divisibility, durability, portability, fungibility, etc.  Bitcoin doesn't actually remove counter party risk at all.  It's also not fungible and any crypto that's not fungible is a permissioned ledger by default.  Nor is it a valid store of generational wealth like gold and silver because the entire thing can just blow up at random.  

Therefore, the only thing bitcoin really does better is portability and a bit better granularity (with the added inconvenience of giant technical burden).  In current state you have to be flat out lying to say bitcoin beats gold and silver as money.  It's clearly inferior and there is no evidence that relationship will change anytime soon (beyond wild claims by Anonymintcoin).  Bitcoin is only a currency and gold and silver are money; there's a big difference.

The market is telling you that Bitcoin is the reserve currency of the experimentation that will unleash all that utility that crypto-currency and blockchains can do which precious metals never can. Bitcoin is now at parity with gold. The pattern of Android below is what crypto is going to do relative to precious metals:

He is like 3-4 years behind any decent competition

[CoinCube]

On the gold/silver/bitcoin question. I am with OROBTC not a bad idea to have some exposure to all three.

That's what I have done in a ratio of 20% / 5% / 75% I am very bitcoin heavy but I am early on in my career and can tolerate some risk. Plus we are not really talking about that much money overall.

Personally I think silver will do the worst of the three over the short run but it has some serious medium term potential.

Once 3D printing takes off silver ink will become a required commodity for all sorts of 3D and wearable electronics. It not here yet but give it a decade or two and industry demand for silver could skyrocket.

Silver nanoparticle ink technology: state of the art.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714735/

Abstract
Printed electronics will bring to the consumer level great breakthroughs and unique products in the near future, shifting the usual paradigm of electronic devices and circuit boards from hard boxes and rigid sheets into flexible thin layers and bringing disposable electronics, smart tags, and so on. The most promising tool to achieve the target depends upon the availability of nanotechnology-based functional inks. A certain delay in the innovation-transfer process to the market is now being observed. Nevertheless, the most widely diffused product, settled technology, and the highest sales volumes are related to the silver nanoparticle-based ink market, representing the best example of commercial nanotechnology today. This is a compact review on synthesis routes, main properties, and practical applications.

[iamnotback]

When the House reconvened two days later, a coalition of Northern Republicans and Free Soilers narrowly blocked referral of the Lecompton Constitution to the House Territories Committee. Kansas entered the Union in 1861 as a free state. This illustrated the emotions that then erupted into civil war with the Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–14, 1861). From the melee on the Floor of Congress to the start of the civil was was 3.18 years. We are looking at the risk of a complete breakdown in the country come as early as March 10th, 2020.

[sidhujag]

Roach read http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2016/02/two-malthusian-scares.html?m=1#links

We are in the offloading gold stage by elite.. oil producers are buying by converting from oil.. malthusian event is over and commodities are set to collapse lagging behind gold. Now where oh where the heck is smart money going to start putting their money over the next decade in anticipation of industrial usage actually catching up and producing the next malthusian event? Hint its sure as hell not back into gold.. as that would not.be very smart

[iamnotback]

Roach read http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2016/02/two-malthusian-scares.html?m=1#links

We are in the offloading gold stage by elite.. oil producers are buying by converting from oil.. malthusian event is over and commodities are set to collapse lagging behind gold. Now where oh where the heck is smart money going to start putting their money over the next decade in anticipation of industrial usage actually catching up and producing the next malthusian event? Hint its sure as hell not back into gold.. as that would not.be very smart

Excellent post. Plays right into the theme of my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay.

[Risk Mgmt]

Is someone here present who can decipher MA fuzzy talk.   Sometimes he confuses me. 

I recall sometime back there was a member here who had good grasp of how MA communication.  Also, anyone here a subscriber to MA's services?

Thank you

[iamnotback]

Learn why Germany's industry wanted the Euro to eliminate exchange rate risk for their European markets (and how that enslaved the PIIGS who borrowed in Euros but couldn't pay it back in devalued currency)

Actually, the Euro was as much an initiative of France as any.

Agreed Charles de Gaulle was the fundamental leader of the creation of the 5th republic and his thesis was France (Europe) should be a super power on par with the USA, and not a slave to the USA. So he played right into the trap of Germany's mercantilism.

You may be correct there were other global political players and incentives. I haven't studied it extensively, just an hour or so of googling and reading.

As I have stated before, when the Euro was being planned, the commission in charge attended our World Economic Conference in London. I warned them that the Euro would fail unless the plan consolidated all the debts of member states. They said they understood the problem, but that the European people would never vote for that plan and so they wanted to get the currency through first and deal with the debt later.

That Phase II never came and as a result, as the euro then rallied from 80 cents to the dollar to about $1.60, all PREVIOUS debt of  member states DOUBLED in real cost. Joining the euro effectively destroyed Southern Europe and the politicians still cannot figure this out. It is as simple as you borrowed a foreign currency to buy your house and then that currency double in price. You now owed twice the amount in your home currency.

Further explanation which also addresses the unit-of-account = unit-of-exchange point:

QUESTION:  Hello, I do not understand what Martin say about the fact that the Greek debt doubled when it changed into euro. Indeed, if the currency is twice the value of the old one then all your debt will double as Martin said. However all your assets will double in value too. So it is the same situation as before. I may miss something, could you please explain me what I am missing ?
Best regards,

ANSWER: Yes, private assets rose in value in Southern Europe as the euro rose from 80 cents to $1.60. However, this tended to produce deflation, not inflation as prices rose eliminating competition for tourism etc. reducing sales. The point about the public debt doubling was the fact that this was previous debt, not current, and government has no real performing assets. To service the debt that doubled, they also then began to raise taxes more aggressively and this then was much like strip-mining the economy. Servicing the previous debt increased dramatically reducing the ability to continue spending on various sectors as previous debt servicing was increased.

Germany benefited from the Euro because they were manufacturing products and selling them into Europe and did not have to worry about currency fluctuations. I helped the Japanese to sell their products globally by showing them that they had to price their products in the local currency and then take the FX risk home to manage. They beat the Germans who were pricing their cars always in Deutsche-marks so a Porsche doubled in value in dollar terms between 1970 and 1980 just due to currency – not inflation. The movement of creating a euro was to eliminate currency risk so the German manufacturers could sell their products throughout Europe.

Greece’s top three main industries are tourism, shipping, and industrial products. By joining the Euro, Greece lost the attraction of a cheap holiday for tourists and shipping prices rose. Greece is nowhere near attaining those manufacturing characteristics, and is often one of the smallest in this regard compared to Germany, Japan, and China. However, the Greek-owned fleet of ships remains where it has been for a very long time, at the TOP of the global ranking of shipowning nations. Joining the Eurozone has hurt Greek shipping increasing its cost and opening the door to competition. China is moving upwards rapidly in shipping, and potentially could overtake both Greece and Japan (the second largest) to become number one shipowner within a decade. Greece has not benefited from joining the

Eurozone and this has been the greatest myth which has hurt the Greek people tremendously.

European tourism began to move outside the Eurozone for vacations because it was cheaper. Greece has an economy with a public sector accounting for about 40% of GDP and with per capita GDP about two-thirds that of the leading Eurozone economies, this has contributed greatly to its debt crisis. Tourism provides 18% of GDP, so joining the Euro was a complete disaster for tourism and when the government is 40% of GDP and produces nothing to export, the debt crisis simply escalates. The likelihood of Greece have to exit the Eurozone is growing tremendously by the day.