Martin Armstrong Discussion

[Wekkel]

But how will they block cryptocurrencies then?

[1714137296]

1714137296

[1714137296]

1714137296

[1714137296]

1714137296

[THX 1138]

Makes you wonder just how clued-up he is on the subject.

[sidhujag]

Makes you wonder just how clued-up he is on the subject.

Ive said many times he doesnt know what hes talking about on most subjects. He is only good for his long term macro wave theory. Dont read into his other stuff unless you wanna lose money.

[Hyperme.sh]

MA being pretty unambiguous in his opinion here:

QUESTION: Marty, do you think any crypto currency will survive?

ANSWER: No. We are looking at central banks and even the Chinese government is moving to create a Cryptocurrencies. There is no question that we will be looking at this as the next evolutionary step forward in the monetary system.

However, what I have been warning about is the public v private issue. Governments are hunting money everywhere. There is just NO POSSIBLE WAY they will allow private Cryptocurrencies  to circumvent their control and taxation.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/cryptocurrencies-2/

Makes you wonder just how clued-up he is on the subject.

Ive said many times he doesnt know what hes talking about on most subjects. He is only good for his long term macro wave theory. Dont read into his other stuff unless you wanna lose money.

IMO, y’all might be interpreting his statement as more encompassing than his presumed thought process. My thought is the reality is probably more nuanced. Also he presumably does not have access to all the information such as some of the details below.

I do not know how anyone could reasonably argue that he is not correct about that governments will use their taxing and regulatory powers.

I interpret that he means we will not have a mainstream cryptocurrency that enables people to escape with “black money”. He agrees that decentralized ledger technology will be part of the monetary future. However the interpretation that he is claiming that no decentralized ledgers created by the free market will survive, is a bit extreme as well (whether he meant that or whether the interpretation is too extreme). Seems to me that he is at most referring only to cryptocurrency, not to other applications of decentralized ledgers. I presume he is thinking is about a cryptocurrency that would enable evasion of taxation and AML regulatory control. Whereas, apparently utility tokens are not in his radar at the moment. Also I presume he does has not delved sufficiently into the theory that Bitcoin was created by the Zionists and Bitcoin MUST BECOME ENTIRELY CENTRALIZED as per its premeditated design. Recent research has modelled that there is no way to alter Satoshi’s design such that proof-of-work can remain incentives compatible as transaction fees rise and block reward declines. It is a fundamental design goal that Bitcoin is ultimately centralized (as it appears it was designed this way and none of the forks can fix this). Thus a theory that Bitcoin is and will be controlled by the Zionists so in this respect Armstrong will end up being incorrect, unless the Zionists decide to destroy Bitcoin (since the theory is they already might control it). My theory has remained since 2013 that Bitcoin was created to disintermediate the nation-states to drive civilization toward a world government reserve currency. We can clearly see that (even including the forks of) Bitcoin can never scale decentralized (unlike my own decentralized ledger design which in theory can), and thus Bitcoin will become only a reserve currency and not a decentralized, non-fractional-reserve transactional currency (recent revelations show that Lightning Networks and side-chains are insolubly flawed and can’t ever be secure).

@sidhujag, its difficult for me to find a way to say this without being condescending, which is not my intention. Rather I’m just trying to avoid an inefficient dialogue wherein we haven’t really put in the highly detailed discussion necessary to avoid cognitive dissonance. I have observed your succinct post quips in this thread, there appear to be gaps in your understanding the technological and economics theory issues when you comment on decentralized ledger issues such as those in the prior paragraph. It’s a massive amount of information and detail that even I sometimes forget some key details. So please do not respond with some quip about the above technological issues, because it’s frustrating for me to read something from you wherein I see errors or incompleteness but I do not have the time to get into a long debate with you. It is a deep discussion and I can’t have it right now. You’re smart and we can learn if given access to all the information.

This is very important because I have been studying this problem in my analysis of how to avoid issuing a token as a security.

Bottom line is that if you have any money for which you have no legit paper trail where all taxes and regulatory requirements were met, this is “black money” and the governments of the world are going to make it very difficult to launder that money and bring it back into their financial system. Since they control all the means of industrial production and they control the masses, the presumably we will not be able to easily employ such “black money” in the brick & mortar (physical) economy.

The cryptocurrency investment that will make you a $multi-millionaire will be the one that the masses are not afraid to use and which is not breaking laws. We can do a lot of really wonderful accomplishments with decentralized ledgers without breaking laws.

We disintermediate government not by breaking their laws, but by making government irrelevant while being 100% legal. We paradigm shift them in a way they can not react to. Securties and AML laws are already on the books worldwide and ready for use. We will not succeed to subvert those laws directly. But we can for example subvert them indirectly, because for example there is no way the government is going to force users to track and report every nanotransaction.

Much better to move yourself to a jurisdiction that does not tax you, than to try to snub the law and suffer dearly for it.

Bitcoin has been the escape method for capital fleeing China. With the looming trade war on the horizon, the Chinese government will have absolutely NO CHOICE but to come in and regulate bitcoin as its citizens now account for 98% of all trading. From a regulatory perspective, the days of passive treatment of bitcoin may come to an end. Bitcoin has soared only because it has been the mechanism to obtain foreign exchange and take capital out of China. This could easily be considered an illegal operation, such as money laundering, to justify closing that window.

Of course, you have the zealots who preach bitcoin as the alternative to the dollar that they cannot shut down. All they need to do is declare bitcoins illegal and the PRESUMPTION of being in bitcoin is a PRESUMPTION of being a criminal. They are already using terms like “CASH IS FOR CRIMINALS” and if you have a few thousand in cash, they just confiscate it presuming you are criminal under Civil Asset Forfeiture without having to prove you committed a crime or charging you.

Keep in mind we are dancing with the devil. There are no rules — just ruthless self-interest. They will do whatever it takes to survive. They will not relinquish power willingly.

[Hyperme.sh]

Im fairly certain nash instrumented btc.

No he was just the excuse.

The truth about who created Bitcoin and why.

[kidsuzudn]

Well he discovered the cycle by noticing trends in history before he realised he was looking at an actual mathematically precise global cycle. What you're saying is kind of like saying the number Pi itself is arbitrary. You're entering into the realm of asking why the universe is constructed in ways that continually manifest out of mathematical constants like the number Pi. If you're asking specifically why it's Pi * 1000, and not Pi * 10000 or Pi * 100, the answer to that is that the cycle is fractal. If you continuously multiply or divide the timespan of 3141 days by pi you will get more numbers that he has found correlating trends for as well (approximate 8.6 year cycles within 27 year cycles within 86 year cycles, etc.) If you appreciate the fact that the universe is cyclical and fractal in it's very nature, the idea that the collective activity and behaviour of the entire human race would manifest itself in a pattern doesn't really seem that far fetched.

[Risk Mgmt]

Anyone here -- can help decipher below paragraph?

"Our Major Target Resistance for this year stands at 25,648. The critical support is shaping up now at 20,000. There is a serious risk of a very critical Vertical Market move that can create the most awesome trade in a generation beyond most people's wildest imagination. We will focus on this at the WEC."

 
Are we looking at correction in DOW and than sky rocket up after weak hands taken out?   


Thank you in Advance.

[Hyperme.sh]

Im fairly certain nash instrumented btc.

No he was just the excuse.

The truth about who created Bitcoin and why.  <---- More details have been posted this thread. Re-read it.

Remember I told you (@sidhujag) I was not interested in being involved with Dan’s EOS.

Here are the gory details and that is an important read because it also provides some relevance to Bitcoin and our ecosystem in general.

"Our Major Target Resistance for this year stands at 25,648. The critical support is shaping up now at 20,000. There is a serious risk of a very critical Vertical Market move that can create the most awesome trade in a generation beyond most people's wildest imagination. We will focus on this at the WEC."

Are we looking at correction in DOW and than sky rocket up after weak hands taken out?  

He is saying that if we end the year above that 25,648, then the bull market headed towards 38,000+ is underway. Whereas, we still have the possibility of a SLINGSHOT dive down first, and that critical support is at 20,000. If we were to break below 20,000, then his SLINGSHOT theory would be void and we would be in a bear market.

So what he is saying is the we are waiting either for the SLINGSHOT dive down to maybe as low as 20,000, else we will simply just start rising without a dive down.

But the timing can delay into next year.

More complete explanations are given to subscribers.

Armstrong is very bullish on DJIA over next few years. Should go to 38,000+ as there will be an international capital stampede out of Europe into the US dollar. The Catalonia separatist movement election may be the catalyst. We are still waiting for the catalyst in Europe. A strong wind could blow over the entire banking system in Europe. The ECB is bankrupt.

Long-term LEAPs on the DJIA would be a “no brainer” if we get that SLINGSHOT dive down. Presuming you do not fear capital controls in the USA that steal your investments.

[sidhujag]

Im fairly certain nash instrumented btc.

No he was just the excuse.

The truth about who created Bitcoin and why.  <---- More details have been posted this thread. Re-read it.

Remember I told you (@sidhujag) I was not interested in being involved with Dan’s EOS.

Here are the gory details and that is an important read because it also provides some relevance to Bitcoin and our ecosystem in general.

"Our Major Target Resistance for this year stands at 25,648. The critical support is shaping up now at 20,000. There is a serious risk of a very critical Vertical Market move that can create the most awesome trade in a generation beyond most people's wildest imagination. We will focus on this at the WEC."

Are we looking at correction in DOW and than sky rocket up after weak hands taken out?  

He is saying that if we end the year above that 25,648, then the bull market headed towards 38,000+ is underway. Whereas, we still have the possibility of a SLINGSHOT dive down first, and that critical support is at 20,000. If we were to break below 20,000, then his SLINGSHOT theory would be void and we would be in a bear market.

So what he is saying is the we are waiting either for the SLINGSHOT dive down to maybe as low as 20,000, else we will simply just start rising without a dive down.

But the timing can delay into next year.

More complete explanations are given to subscribers.

Armstrong is very bullish on DJIA over next few years. Should go to 38,000+ as there will be an international capital stampede out of Europe into the US dollar. The Catalonia separatist movement election may be the catalyst. We are still waiting for the catalyst in Europe. A strong wind could blow over the entire banking system in Europe. The ECB is bankrupt.

Long-term LEAPs on the DJIA would be a “no brainer” if we get that SLINGSHOT dive down. Presuming you do not fear capital controls in the USA that steal your investments.

Idea was to work on yours not eos. He chose eos because he had 200 million reasons for it. Chasing paper i guess was his decision.

[Hyperme.sh]

I predict ESR will never approve this comment. And thus he will deny the truth about the Civil War. He’s been fed a lot of lies by the revisionist history sources provided to him by the Zionists who organized the Civil War to break down the States Rights and individual sovereignty.

It’s sad to see the rationality/objectivity of a man with a very high IQ be destroyed by propaganda which he can’t distinguish from facts.

The South revolted to defend the indefensible of chattel slavery

[…]

Robert E. Lee … his opposition to … black freedmen

Incorrect.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/north-v-south-revising-history/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/do-states-in-usa-have-a-right-to-leave/

Armstrong has original copies of the historical newspapers and other documents and artifacts going back 1000s of years.

Surprisingly ESR did publish the comment and I replied challenging him to maintain his CREDibility:

We have standards here. In future, if you’re going to post links to a tendentious fake-history site, please make sure it’s at least coherent and more than semi-literate first. That wasn’t even competent propaganda.

Thank you for publishing the counter argument. But it’s not a sufficient ongoing condition to continue to rely on you to do that because…

It’s a shame for a man of your apparent intellect to be guided by ideological biases instead of objective sources. It’s impossible to get objective information on your walled garden Mr. “open” source. We’ll scrape your public data to a blockchain and open discourse to everyone who has something to say and hopefully crowd source more data. Curation can be decentralized, so your audience may choose you as the curator of their filters if they so desire.

Honestly I don’t currently have an objective source for the necessary data to know whether most of the Confederate soldiers were plantation owners. Do you?

And I don’t trust revisionists sources controlled by the Zionist media of present or yore.

I was born in New Orleans so I’m offended by your accusations of Southerners, although my recollection growing up there’s some truth to the romanticism theme. From my perspective, the overriding theme is States’ rights, we had a culture that we wanted to protect and we viewed ourselves as culturally and ideologically distinct from “city slickers” who we perceived to have sold their soul for bright lights, money, and hedonism amongst other corrupted values. We felt others were interfering and trying to eradicate our culture. I agree that the “blacks are inferior” attitude was still a pervasive (but rapidly waning) part of that culture as late as the 1960s and early 1970s, yet even my grandmother who had that attitude was vindicated when a black man followed my female cousin home from the French Quarter to Metairie and mugged her on our front porch, which I was watching through the window. Because of my liberal mother and genius IQ stepfather, I attended all black public schools in Baton Rouge in the poorest neighborhoods wherein my sister and I were the only two white students in the entire elementary school. That forced integration stunted my education, because all they did was throw spit balls and kick the (afair mostly white) teachers out of the classrooms.

Secondly, when Armstrong has been challenged in the past, he has been able to produce original copies of artifacts because he claims to have spent an inflation-adjusted ~$billion on collecting historical artifacts. For example, he claims to have spent $10 million in the 1970s and 1980s collecting Roman era silver coinage so that he was able to construct the first and only accurate chart of the debasement of silver during the Western Roman empire.

I want to know the truth about this and my mind is open, but I’m not getting the necessary raw data from your exposition. I presume we both agree that claim is not proof. Where is your data? And how do I know your data hasn’t been curated and inculcated by the Zionists? (Zionists != all Jews)

I’m starting to realize why I prefer the self-deprecating, badass Linus Torvalds to the politically correct hack ESR:

Are you a Libertarian or a minanarchist? Why are you even promulgating these questions? We do not ask the free market questions, we observe outcomes. Politicization is “Oh he is so vile, but I must defend him because of my superior virtues” masturbation in front of power vacuums.

And by pandering to the popular notion that the guy is vile, he obscures that it is purely a free market outcome that women demand vile men. He enables continued ignorance while protecting himself by couching his essay in some politically correct speech.

It’s similar to what the Trilema dude wrote about the Core devs. Politicizing instead of focusing on doing important work or analysis.

Making sure he jumps on the side of political correctness by declaring the man vile whilst simultaneously declaring himself virtuous yet recognizing that its just human nature both from the standpoint of the way women and men operate in certain settings of power structure and especially in a decadent society which fosters such. Unnecessary moralizing pandering to the tyranny of the mob power vacuum while judging a man for being the sort of jerk women want (i.e. that the free market of human nature demands) yet placing himself on a quicksand pedestal of political correctness, whilst implicitly encouraging the decadence by pandering to political correctness.

James A. Donald explained more scientifically without the leftist bullshit:

https://blog.jim.com/culture/chicks-dig-jerks/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/what-women-want/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/in-defense-of-hugh-hefner/

The entire point is that if we succumb to peer pressure and appeasing the majority, then we lose our own objectivity and relevance.

I do not want ESR as a role model having to constantly worry about his pandering and how he (mis)judges even history due to his self-important ideological bias:

https://blog.jim.com/culture/role-models/



(In due respect, some of Eric’s code such as gif and gpsd apparently widely used)

P.S. on politics vs. research:

Btw, not that it changes the point of what other people perceive to be offensive to their own politics, my pursuit is not politics because I am not trying to tell anyone else what to do or leverage the collective to do so. I am doing research on (e.g. WTC, Zionists, theology, etc) and challenging others to also do so.

I am not pandering to any constituency.

[Hyperme.sh]

How did you determine the shepherd is not leading me? And if the shepherd’s guidance is not helpful then what is the use of a shepherd.

Your logic is all discombobulated and internally inconsistent.

I have not made such a determination nor could I.

I don't it is inconsistent but I suppose that would depend on what fundamental assumptions one has assumed to be true and are testing it against.

So you attribute none of anyone’s accomplishments to their own. So why do anything? Just do what ever because the shepherd is in control of all us sheep.

As I said, your logic is internally inconsistent.

Because we won't be sheep forever. We can make incremental progress and work towards elevating ourselves into something more then sheep. The full scope of that transition, however, from homo sapian into something more divine is far beyond current human ability, understanding, and wisdom.

The shepherd does not control the sheep. He simply sets broad guidelines and rules to keep them safe, healthy. He often fails as the sheep kill them selves in large numbers for stupid reasons.

The error is not the belief that we can strive towards becoming less sheep like. We can and should. The error is in thinking that turning oneself into an alpha sheep somehow changes ones fundamentally sheeplike nature it does not. Worse yet is rejecting the shepherd entirely and wandering through the forest pretending to be something other then a sheep. It's entirely possible to be an alpha sheep this way and find the very best grass to eat while being entirely unaware of the underlying peril of the situation.

A sheep will always fail the prisoners dilemma or look for ways to change the rules by introducing outside variables.  Alpha sheep will always fail the prisoners dilemma. That's a very simple way of confirming we are sheep not and not something better. Sheep striving to improve ourselves yes but sheep nevertheless.

The simple reality is that there is no FREEDOM, except under the full control of the 10 Commandments and strict Biblical Principles
unless each and every individual can exercise self-control, spiritual discipline and accountability before, under and in allegiance to GOD Almighty, true civic Freedom along the lines of "live and let live" will never be and can never be.

As I’ve observed you for a long time now (and vice versa) and tried my best to develop a mutual understanding with you, I’ve reached the exasperating conclusion that you’re displaying the confirmation bias that you desire to fit everything into your rigid, dogmatic, judgemental, highly idealistic (and unrealistic) belief system which lacks sufficient degrees-of-freedom to allow you to understand and fully appreciate others — your belief that there’s some absolute truth, God, or morals. You might think vice versa that I’m favoring a confirmation bias for Nihilism or decentralization.

Ideologues want to control others, even if it’s by proxy through their God. They believe the virtues of their ideology justify their right to judge and conquer others. For example those who believe they must conquer Islam to liberate the females. Or those who believe the North was righteous in violating the sovereignty of States and conquering the South to liberate the slaves.

Ideology spawns zealots, collectivized oppression, and in general fights against the universal trend towards maximum entropy. It’s far too simplistic (and thus incomplete) to conclude that the fight for egalitarianism and equal rights, is required for maximizing universal entropy. Nature is multifarious and competitive.

The most dogmatic and rigid, such as the Jews and the Socialists, are prone to leading themselves right into megadeath over and over. And their ideological bent seems to incubate disrespect for diversity (the antithesis of egalitarianism) and eventually becoming justification for what the Zionists are doing now.

Ideologues are incredibly dangerous shepherds who lead their flock over the cliff (e.g. the Holocaust), and spawn zealot sociopaths like George Soros[1].

I reject that notion of an absolute truth as unprovable and necessarily untestable, because of the necessity of relativity (of even information) as I have explained numerous times. My belief is not Nihilism.

I believe we’re all cogs in a greater wheel that can’t be observed because our existence is predicated on the quantization of time, as I have explained numerous times (that omniscience is impossible because spacetime is not collapsed into an undifferentiated past and future light cones).

We have free will in some partial order perspective sense, but not in an unobservable total ordering perspective. Why even mention what can’t be observed!

The sheep don’t entertain all the information nor attempt to assimilate as much information as is possible. Therefore, I’m not a sheep.

You have some inborn (or mother instilled) resentment against the true nature of males and especially alphamales, so thus presumably I will be your antagonist.

I don’t reject ethical values, but for example your extreme dogmatic stance and resentment of the true nature of males, is a rejection of the commandment to not idol anything. You’re idolizing your belief system!

Whereas, I’m trying to not have a belief system that I can’t observe. I’m not trying to tell anyone else what to believe at the existential philosophy level. I try to understand nature and the reasons that we have evolved to have the natural characteristics that we have and try to contemplate which patterns of culture have been successful. I am information based, not ideologically biased (or at least trying not to be).

Yet I’m not idolizing myself. I know that no matter which choices I make in life, there will be ramifications which are not the ones I wanted or even couldn’t anticipate. There’s no right answer about what to do in life, except the one that each person chooses. Yes there are consequences, but there’s no absolute truth by which to measure those outcomes consistent throughout (all space and time and metaphysical dimensions).

After all, I’m just a simpleton Southerner boy who wants to play sports and fiddle with technology until I die. I wish the world would just let me play.

The abhorrent evil of 9/11 is a phenomenon which is beyond my grasp to directly confront. It’s not analogous to a boxing match or a basketball game. The opposition and I can’t settle our differences directly in a tournament. It’s a battle of social organization and over the beliefs of others. The only rational way for me to confront this evil is to apply technological efforts attempting to decentralize the control systems of social organization. I don’t desire to engage them on the battlefield of politics. It’s clear that politics and control over others (even for sheepdog ideological reasons) is misdirected away from the only universal truth: the maximization of universal entropy. Entropy is a measure of uncertainty. While it’s true that breaking down local barriers to global interaction, can increase the level of uncertainty in the possibilities, it’s too simplistic to conclude that must necessarily take the form of an overlord world government. It’s also too simplistic to conclude that it must necessarily take the form of the 10 Commandments or some absolute truth morality. For example, the commandment that we shall not bear false witness against another. Since there’s no observable total order, it’s quite implausible to be sure that anything we do is absolutely true. I can actually give you a very realistic example where one makes a fool of themselves because they were lacking complete information but didn’t know it. Yet this isn’t Nihilism because I believe partial orders do allow observable consequences and the game we’re playing called life, is contemporaneous and reflective. What did you do today or last year which is dear to your heart or mind?

It seems to me that the less one attempts to bear witness or judge, and the more one attempts to facilitate uncertainty, the more well directed one is w.r.t. to the only known universal truth.

Perhaps one reaches peace when they realize they don’t have to get anyone else’s approval for their beliefs, when one is comfortable in their own philosophy even if no one else pats them on the back or joins with them.

[1] George Soros, the man whose rationale is it was okay that he participated in slaughtering his fellow Jews because if not him somebody else would have done it any way. Soros is presumably funding SJWs because he justifies any means to the ends of destroying tribalism, but per Armstrong’s explanation in my prior post in this thread, the cycle of return to separatism and local sovereignty is unavoidable. The police brutality in Catalonia notwithstanding. The polls in Catalonia employed decentralization to subvert the Spanish Federal police thugs.

Some will escape being put to death, because they saw the signs prior and fled. According to the book, those people will be sustained by the entity in some manner and will be the ones who endure till the end.

It’s not clear in the Bible if those who are raptured are not put to death or whatever. Rather the rapture applies to the person’s soul not their earthly carcass.

The Bible says those who refuse the Mark 666 will be put to death, but they can still be raptured.

As Dork says, the Bible says that in heaven (and on earth after Jesus returns with those who were raptured), there is no use for money. So thus your proclamation that Bitcoin is useful for those who survive the reign of the Anti-Christ is a nonsensical theological theory.


My perspective is the threat from the Zionists is much nearer-term and I don’t base that on the Bible but rather the expert videos by scholars that exquisitely lay out the evidence that Mossad slaughtered 2700+ Americans on 9/11. The Zionists are collapsing the globally economy with a global monetary reset coming within several years.

They will be ratcheting up their use of laws to force everyone into the corrals, but entirely turning off Bitcoin would be antithetical to the reasons they built Bitcoin in the first place.



9/11 by 19 incompetents and Bitcoin by a lone Japanese hacker are posited to be examples of the amazing (almost magical to the masses) feats the Anti-Christ will do which the people will greatly admire. And yes, the people are admiring 9/11 as the example of what 19 Arabs with box cutters who couldn’t even fly airplanes well enough in flight school, were able to accomplish — i.e. the sheep are hoodwinked by the Anti-Christ as predicted in the Bible.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” — Arthur C. Clarke

[Hyperme.sh]

A bull market in all private assets is well underway, yet people mistake this for a bubble:

The Bull Market – This time It Really Is Different

This current Bull Market has indeed been the most hated in history. Typically one expects complete euphoria as new highs are made. However, this bull market is really different this time. This rally is by no means the product of euphoria. While the majority of analysts have been calling for a crash since 2010 and every new high was supposed to be the last […]

[…]

Rare coins, art, and antiques have soared around the globe. Add to all this the craze, we have  cryptocurrencies and BitCoin going nuts. Yet the entire bull market of the Roaring ’20s was 97 months. We passed that mark in April 2017. This is also the longest bullish trend suggesting there is something else afoot.

So exactly what is going on? Do we really have a bull market in EVERYTHING? Well the answer is yes and no. If we look closely at the high-end property market, much of the sales are for CASH – not leveraged. This too is highly unusual. Historically, such asset bubbles have been funded by banks. Yet the bitter experience has shown that debt-funded asset bubble implode taking the banks with them. The assets collapse in value because the banks need cash with withdrawals. The leverage magnifies the cash on the way up, and on the way down, assets crash to rebalance against the actual supply of cash.

The bull market in everything is really a global realization that government is in trouble. We are looking at money getting out of banks and government to REDUCE the risk of government as we move forward.  So this time it is different. Normally, we have one sector at a time in a bubble, commodities, stocks, real estate, tangible assets. We normally do not see a bull market in everything unless there is a wave of movement away from government.

[sidhujag]

A bull market in all private assets is well underway, yet people mistake this for a bubble:

The Bull Market – This time It Really Is Different

This current Bull Market has indeed been the most hated in history. Typically one expects complete euphoria as new highs are made. However, this bull market is really different this time. This rally is by no means the product of euphoria. While the majority of analysts have been calling for a crash since 2010 and every new high was supposed to be the last […]

[…]

Rare coins, art, and antiques have soared around the globe. Add to all this the craze, we have  cryptocurrencies and BitCoin going nuts. Yet the entire bull market of the Roaring ’20s was 97 months. We passed that mark in April 2017. This is also the longest bullish trend suggesting there is something else afoot.

So exactly what is going on? Do we really have a bull market in EVERYTHING? Well the answer is yes and no. If we look closely at the high-end property market, much of the sales are for CASH – not leveraged. This too is highly unusual. Historically, such asset bubbles have been funded by banks. Yet the bitter experience has shown that debt-funded asset bubble implode taking the banks with them. The assets collapse in value because the banks need cash with withdrawals. The leverage magnifies the cash on the way up, and on the way down, assets crash to rebalance against the actual supply of cash.

The bull market in everything is really a global realization that government is in trouble. We are looking at money getting out of banks and government to REDUCE the risk of government as we move forward.  So this time it is different. Normally, we have one sector at a time in a bubble, commodities, stocks, real estate, tangible assets. We normally do not see a bull market in everything unless there is a wave of movement away from government.

I think its time to sell.. crypto is a safe haven

[CoinCube]

As I’ve observed you for a long time now (and vice versa) and tried my best to develop a mutual understanding with you, I’ve reached the exasperating conclusion that you’re displaying the confirmation bias that you desire to fit everything into your rigid, dogmatic, judgemental, highly idealistic (and unrealistic) belief system which lacks sufficient degrees-of-freedom to allow you to understand and fully appreciate others — your belief that there’s some absolute truth, God, or morals. You might think vice versa that I’m favoring a confirmation bias for Nihilism or decentralization.
...
I reject that notion of an absolute truth as unprovable and necessarily untestable, because of the necessity of relativity (of even information) as I have explained numerous times. My belief is not Nihilism.
...
I have explained numerous times (that omniscience is impossible because spacetime is not collapsed into an undifferentiated past and future light cones).
...
There’s no right answer about what to do in life, except the one that each person chooses. Yes there are consequences, but there’s no absolute truth by which to measure those outcomes consistent throughout (all space and time and metaphysical dimensions).
...
The sheep don’t entertain all the information nor attempt to assimilate as much information as is possible. Therefore, I’m not a sheep.

I... try to contemplate which patterns of culture have been successful. I am information based, not ideologically biased
...
This isn’t Nihilism because I believe partial orders do allow observable consequences

Perhaps one reaches peace when they realize they don’t have to get anyone else’s approval for their beliefs, when one is comfortable in their own philosophy even if no one else pats them on the back or joins with them.

Hello Hyperme.sh since you have decided to take our friendly banter public I think some background information would help readers understand what we are talking about.

The above private message exchange was sparked by my post of Ben Hunt's essay titled.

Sheep Logic - This Is The Age Of The High-Functioning Sociopath
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg22652426#msg22652426

I actually have little desire for theological debate. So I will instead post some friendly queries.

You report the following beliefs.

1) You reject that notion of an absolute truth. You also categorically state that omniscience is impossible.

2) You argue that there is no right answer about what to do in life, except the one that each person chooses.

3) Your argue that your belief that actions have observable consequences make your beliefs a separate entity from nihilism.

These are the questions I have for you given your stated positions.

Question 1: God according to all of the major monotheistic religions is omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence(unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), and had an an eternal and necessary existence. As you have chosen apriori to believe that there is no absolute truth and that omniscience is impossible how can you reconcile these views with a belief in God, Jesus, or religion of any kind?

Question 2: You argue that there is no right answer about what to do in life, except the one each person chooses. How is your view anything other then a conclusion that the ends justify the means?

Question 3: You mention evil several times but seem to have adopted a set of assumptions that precludes the existence of evil. How do you define evil? Can evil exist under your assumptions? If the only thing that matters is observed consequences why is it wrong to steal from or kill my enemies if I can get away with it or to take from the weak because that is the natural order of things?

Question 4: You mentioned that your belief that actions have observable consequences makes your views a separate entity from nihilism yet a belief in cause and effect is entirely compatible with nihilism. The foundation of nihilism is the belief that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists also assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. When you say that your beliefs are not nihilism are you saying that you disagree with the nihilist on these issues or simply that you have reached the same conclusions via different means?

[Hyperme.sh]

I think its time to sell.. crypto is a safe haven

Lol.

Question 1: God according to all of the major monotheistic religions is omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence(unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), and had an an eternal and necessary existence. As you have chosen apriori to believe that there is no absolute truth and that omniscience is impossible how can you reconcile these views with a belief in God, Jesus, or religion of any kind?

If only God is omnipresent, then I have no way to observe or comprehend God’s existence. At best, due the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem, I would at best only have aliasing error. The most I can have is a belief.

So in my closet (Matthew 6:5) I might choose to console with my belief, but I wouldn’t feel empowered with sufficient knowledge to tell someone else (or judge) what they MUST believe in order to achieve something. I might as well be speaking out of my ass, rather than make up stupid reasons to justify why my advice doesn’t work for everyone.

Question 2: You argue that there is no right answer about what to do in life, except the one each person chooses. How is your view anything other then a conclusion that the ends justify the means?

I’m delighted you did not make the mistake of using the word ‘belief’ in this second question, because you’re correct that I argued logically for this perspective based on my understanding of the reality of the Universe.

I explained that there‘s no absolute (total ordering) ends, thus there’s no valid justification of means. Moreover, I argued that ideological (i.e. the feigning of absolute truth) ends are foolish.

I understand you’re pointing out that without a moral compass, you believe that civilization will lose a common purpose and that many ills will plague society, such as promiscuity and lack of k selection, or the use of ransomware in order to become wealthy. But the free market deals with that. Societies perish and others thrive. Diversity (greater uncertainty thus higher entropy) provides for resilience. It occurs to me that an absolute truth or morality would not be antifragile, because there would be no alternatives adapted to differing scenarios.

Thus I think ideology and morality are actually the most amoral.

I might love my neighbor, because I like the observable outcomes or my private belief in a God, not because it’s supposed to be some absolute truth about morally correctness which everyone must follow in order for it to be successful.

I personally like the do unto others as you would want them to do to you. This is how I feel about a society that cares for each other, and I think this works only on the local level though not at large scale collectivism. At large scale, there is massive defection the cheaters escape the Dunbar limit of a tribe’s ability to efficiently squelch defection. For example, although I might want to offer free health care to every person, the scammers would find a way to extract profits from my generosity creating a non-meritorious misallocation of capital which can make the outcome uncompetitive.

Question 3: You mention evil several times but seem to have adopted a set of assumptions that precludes the existence of evil. How do you define evil?

Someone was doing some ideological shit and justifying the means.

Can evil exist under your assumptions? If the only thing that matters is observed consequences why is it wrong to steal from or kill my enemies if I can get away with it or to take from the weak because that is the natural order of things?

Nothing morally wrong with stealing if its not in support of some lie about absolute truth. However, you might consider if that is the society that you want to live in and whether there even exists a society that wants to accept you. Let’s make sure we have an agreed definition of morals. Morals that are an absolute truth or morals that are just accepted norm of a particular society but do not have the ideological power of being claimed to be absolute truth.

Question 4: You mentioned that your belief that actions have observable consequences makes your views a separate entity from nihilism yet a belief in cause and effect is entirely compatible with nihilism. The foundation of nihilism is the belief that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists also assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. When you say that your beliefs are not nihilism are you saying that you disagree with the nihilist on these issues or simply that you have reached the same conclusions via different means?

Afaik, Nihilists do not reject ideological (absolute truth or forced imposition of beliefs) pursuits as amoral and differentiate that activity from any other activity w.r.t. to the issue of morality. So I guess you can conclude there’s two absolute truths I’ve arrived at:

1. Universal trend towards maximum entropy.
2. Amorality of absolute truths (other than these two objective ones).

My brief sketch of nihilism is that it is devoid of preference for purpose and meaning. I have not rejected the ability of the individual to choose a meaning or purpose. I’ve only rejected their nonsense of trying to tell me to involve me in their meaning if I do not wish to be, even passing judgement on me and what will happen to me, and thus slippery sliding into being forced to take control over me.

The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.

Obviously I’m not arguing that rules, norms, or laws are entirely unnecessary, nor am I arguing that there’s no meaning of existence.

Rather I’m stating that there’s no observable absolute truth about these matters, although one could certainly argue for their experience and knowledge of history and argue why some historical observations should continue, but nothing is observably perpetual in our Universe (and we do not observe in perpetuity nor can we even observe everything in any given iota spacetime slice). I’m arguing for a free market of choices. If some group wants to try to enslave another, if that activity is not the most economic or fruitful, they’re likely to get out-competed by a society which has a more efficient organization. I’m confident the maximum division-of-labor destroys (chattel and I argued eventually Theory of the Firm) slavery, as I had explained in great detail in my past writings which you cited in your Economic Devastation thread, as well as my blog Information is Alive!

The USA Civil War wasn’t really a battle about slavery, because economics was going to take care of that any way, rather it was a battle about consolidating the economies-of-scale of the United States at the time when territorial consolidation was economically valuable (the two major oceans of the earth on each coast and the Mississippi river bisecting North-to-South). And now with the Internet (as you have written about), it is about separating into efficient autonomous locales that foster the maximum division-of-labor.

It’s Just Time.

[CoinCube]

Question 2: You argue that there is no right answer about what to do in life, except the one each person chooses. How is your view anything other then a conclusion that the ends justify the means?

I’m delighted you did not make the mistake of using the word ‘belief’ in this second question, because you’re correct that I argued logically for this perspective based on my understanding of the reality of the Universe.

I explained that there‘s no absolute (total ordering) ends, thus there’s no valid justification of means. Moreover, I argued that ideological (i.e. the feigning of absolute truth) ends are foolish.

I understand you’re pointing out that without a moral compass, you believe that civilization will lose a common purpose and that many ills will plague society, such as promiscuity and lack of k selection, or the use of ransomware in order to become wealthy. But the free market deals with that. Societies perish and others thrive. Diversity (greater uncertainty thus higher entropy) provides for resilience. It occurs to me that an absolute truth or morality would not be antifragile, because there would be no alternatives adapted to differing scenarios.

Thus I think ideology and morality are actually the most amoral.

I might love my neighbor, because I like the observable outcomes or my private belief in a God, not because it’s supposed to be some absolute truth about morally correctness which everyone must follow in order for it to be successful.

I personally like the do unto others as you would want them to do to you. This is how I feel about a society that cares for each other, and I think this works only on the local level though not at large scale collectivism. At large scale, there is massive defection the cheaters escape the Dunbar limit of a tribe’s ability to efficiently squelch defection. For example, although I might want to offer free health care to every person, the scammers would find a way to extract profits from my generosity creating a non-meritorious misallocation of capital which can make the outcome uncompetitive.

Question 3: You mention evil several times but seem to have adopted a set of assumptions that precludes the existence of evil. How do you define evil?

Someone was doing some ideological shit and justifying the means.

Can evil exist under your assumptions? If the only thing that matters is observed consequences why is it wrong to steal from or kill my enemies if I can get away with it or to take from the weak because that is the natural order of things?

Nothing morally wrong with stealing if its not in support of some lie about absolute truth. However, you might consider if that is the society that you want to live in and whether there even exists a society that wants to accept you. Let’s make sure we have an agreed definition of morals. Morals that are an absolute truth or morals that are just accepted norm of a particular society but do not have the ideological power of being claimed to be absolute truth.

Question 4: You mentioned that your belief that actions have observable consequences makes your views a separate entity from nihilism yet a belief in cause and effect is entirely compatible with nihilism. The foundation of nihilism is the belief that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists also assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. When you say that your beliefs are not nihilism are you saying that you disagree with the nihilist on these issues or simply that you have reached the same conclusions via different means?

Afaik, Nihilists do not reject ideological (absolute truth or forced imposition of beliefs) pursuits as amoral and differentiate that activity from any other activity w.r.t. to the issue of morality. So I guess you can conclude there’s two absolute truths I’ve arrived at:

1. Universal trend towards maximum entropy.
2. Amorality of absolute truths (other than these two objective ones).

My brief sketch of nihilism is that it is devoid of preference for purpose and meaning. I have not rejected the ability of the individual to choose a meaning or purpose. I’ve only rejected their nonsense of trying to tell me to involve me in their meaning if I do not wish to be, even passing judgement on me and what will happen to me, and thus slippery sliding into being forced to take control over me.

The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.

Obviously I’m not arguing that rules, norms, or laws are entirely unnecessary, nor am I arguing that there’s no meaning of existence.

Rather I’m stating that there’s no observable absolute truth about these matters, although one could certainly argue for their experience and knowledge of history and argue why some historical observations should continue, but nothing is observably perpetual in our Universe (and we do not observe in perpetuity nor can we even observe everything in any given iota spacetime slice). I’m arguing for a free market of choices. If some group wants to try to enslave another, if that activity is not the most economic or fruitful, they’re likely to get out-competed by a society which has a more efficient organization. I’m confident the maximum division-of-labor destroys (chattel and I argued eventually Theory of the Firm) slavery, as I had explained in great detail in my past writings which you cited in your Economic Devastation thread, as well as my blog Information is Alive!

The USA Civil War wasn’t really a battle about slavery, because economics was going to take care of that any way, rather it was a battle about consolidating the economies-of-scale of the United States at the time when territorial consolidation was economically valuable (the two major oceans of the earth on each coast and the Mississippi river bisecting North-to-South). And now with the Internet (as you have written about), it is about separating into efficient autonomous locales that foster the maximum division-of-labor.

It’s Just Time.

Hyperme.sh thank you for answering my questions above let me briefly summarize your answers as I understand them and then give you my thoughts.

1) You argue that the ends justify the means and that any and all actions and crimes can be justified if one can get away with them as the free market and survival of the fittest at work.

2) You argue that the definition of evil is supporting a belief as a universal truth. Thus you define following an ideology or morality as the most amoral thing a person can do.

3) You argue that morals are just the traditions and norms of a particular society nothing more.

I find it interesting that under your code the worst taboo is proclaiming the universal truth of God. The slaver, the murderer, and the thief are all to be praised as successful alpha men as long as they get away with their actions undetected.

In contrast the priest and the rabbi who spend their time in the slums spreading the word of God and warning people against sin are in your world the epitome of evil proclaiming and spreading their "false" belief of a universal truth.

Suffice to say I strongly disagree with your views and find them to be internally incoherent.

That said I wish you well on your spiritual journey.

[Hyperme.sh]

1) You argue that the ends justify the means and that any and all actions and crimes can be justified if one can get away with them as the free market and survival of the fittest at work.

Logic fail. Try again to read what I wrote and correctly comprehend it.

I stated that I would not want to live in a society that did not punish such actions and doubted whether one could find a society that would tolerate them.

I distinguished moralistic (absolute truth) ideological ends and stated these aren’t ever valid thus never justify means. For the remaining ends, I stated these are not ends because they have no total ordering. Thus there are no ends. Instead we live in societies and follow the rules of our chosen society.

You’re trying to demonize my thoughts, because your always moralizing everything, which I vehemently dislike about you. Instead of attempting to understand my analysis with an open mind, you’re approaching it with an ideological bias, wherein you hope to prove that my philosophy is inconsistent and your moralism is consistent, but you have lost that debate already whether you fail to recognize it, is not my problem.

2) You argue that the definition of evil is supporting a belief as a universal truth. Thus you define following an ideology or morality as the most amoral thing a person can do.

Correct. It can only lead to outcomes which deceive society and prevent society from acting rationally, because there is no check-and-balance (no feedback loop) of observable reality to test whether absolute/universal truths are actually true and functioning.

3) You argue that morals are just the traditions and norms of a particular society nothing more.

No I argue that morals are the absolute truths nonsense you and others promulgate.

Societal norms, laws, culture, and customs, are just that and not morals.

I find it interesting that under your code the worst taboo is proclaiming the universal truth of God. The slaver, the murderer, and the thief are all to be praised as successful alpha men as long as they get away with their actions undetected.

There you go again trying to put words in my mouth that I never wrote. You attempt to demonize my words, but you exhibit a lack of comprehension of my statements.

I clearly stated that anyone is free to have their own beliefs as long as their beliefs do not impinge on me.

You can proclaim all you want, as long as you are not trying to establish that your truths are superior to my beliefs and thereby subjugate me by getting society to act irrationally and adopt your beliefs which are not verifiable.

It is quite simple. I think ideologues are evil. And you’ve done more to convince me of that than anyone else I’ve ever known. I fear or wonder what you may slide into in the future (you presumably have the same thought about me). I often wonder if your a wolf in sheepskin who will pounce one day ramming “I told you” ideological crap down my throat.

I tried in exasperation to establish a mutually respectful dialogue and even perhaps intellectual friendship with you, but your ideological subversion makes it impossible. Unfortunately, the antagonism creeps into every discussion we have.

In contrast the priest and the rabbi who spend their time in the slums spreading the word of God and warning people against sin are in your world the epitome of evil proclaiming and spreading their "false" belief of a universal truth.

As brain washing, yes very evil.

It should be taught more as questions about beliefs and logic about how to respect the autonomy of others (which is what part of 10 commandments is about).

If taught as a private relationship with God in each individual’s closet and taught not to impinge their beliefs on others, but rather spread it in the same very humble and not antagonist against non-believers principles, then maybe I can say they are not interested in create an ideological subversion and genuinely interested in the welfare and free will of people.

Even a society which wishes to not emancipate females in order to get more k selection strategy, should not brain wash females with unprovable universal theories as the justification for such subjugation. Rather simply tell them frankly that woman can’t make rational decisions during their fertile years due to hypergamy.

A meaningful relationship with God can only be a very personal thing (maybe even family/clan oriented) any way. All that ideological subversion is antithetical to the cause it purports to achieve.

Suffice to say I strongly disagree with your views and find them to be internally incoherent.

That said I wish you well on your spiritual journey.

Passing false witness is condemned in the Bible. Please be more circumspect.

[CoinCube]

I stated that I would not want to live in a society that did not punish such actions and doubted whether one could find a society that would tolerate them.

I distinguished moralistic (absolute truth) ideological ends and stated these aren’t ever valid thus never justify means. For the remaining ends, I stated these are not ends because they have no total ordering. Thus there are no ends. Instead we live in societies and follow the rules of our chosen society.

You argued that there was "Nothing morally wrong with stealing" but that you would prefer to live in a society where it was not allowed and legal.

This leads to the logical conclusion that we can and should steal as long as we can get away with it and not get caught get either via clever misdirection or finding loopholes in the law.

This also leads to the logical necessity of an all powerful and ever growing state to increasingly monitor and observe its citizens ensuring compliance with an ever growing law.

I clearly stated that anyone is free to have their own beliefs as long as their beliefs do not impinge on me.

You also stated that there is nothing morally wrong with theft and presumably murder as well. At best these are simply local social norms under your system with no inherent meaning or significance.

It is your own worldview that if actually applied would impinge on you either directly via crimes committed against you or indirectly via the state.

It is quite simple. I think ideologues are evil. And you’ve done more to convince me of that than anyone else I’ve ever known.

I will take that as a compliment. If it makes you feel better the feeling is not mutual. I do think your worldview facilitates evil but I do not think you are evil.

Suffice to say I strongly disagree with your views and find them to be internally incoherent.

That said I wish you well on your spiritual journey.

Passing false witness is condemned in the Bible. Please be more circumspect.

It is not false but true to the best of my understanding and wisdom.

In the past I have seen you refer to Matthew 7:1 as a prohibition against judgement.

This is one of the most commonly misunderstood verses of the Bible. I believe you would benefit from reading this commentary on the true meaning of this verse.

http://thediscerningsheep.blogspot.com/2014/12/matthew-71-most-misunderstood-bible.html?m=1

[Hyperme.sh]

Rather I’m stating that there’s no observable absolute truth about these matters, although one could certainly argue for their experience and knowledge of history and argue why some historical observations should continue, but nothing is observably perpetual in our Universe (and we do not observe in perpetuity nor can we even observe everything in any given iota spacetime slice). I’m arguing for a free market of choices. If some group wants to try to enslave another, if that activity is not the most economic or fruitful, they’re likely to get out-competed by a society which has a more efficient organization. I’m confident the maximum division-of-labor destroys (chattel and I argued eventually Theory of the Firm) slavery, as I had explained in great detail in my past writings which you cited in your Economic Devastation thread, as well as my blog Information is Alive!

The USA Civil War wasn’t really a battle about slavery, because economics was going to take care of that any way, rather it was a battle about consolidating the economies-of-scale of the United States at the time when territorial consolidation was economically valuable (the two major oceans of the earth on each coast and the Mississippi river bisecting North-to-South). And now with the Internet (as you have written about), it is about separating into efficient autonomous locales that foster the maximum division-of-labor.

ESR has not replied. I hope he perhaps he has finally gotten the point about his hypocrisy:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7660#comment-1902810

I think that is the first time someone has successfully slapped him back down. And I really was not trying to be disrespectful. He is the one slandering Armstrong[1] and not providing any data to show that the Confederate soldiers were slave owners. They were predominately not. We Southerners were[still are!] fighting against an INVADING army for our way of life and to not be subjugated by the Yankees in the North. It just so happened that slavery was ongoing on the plantations but that was not necessarily something that every Southerner agreed with. It was just the economic conditions of that era. It is very foolish to make the ideological BS conclusions that he did and I hope realizes that now.

The culture of the South is still sufficiently distinct that the breakup of the USA is coming. Armstrong’s predictions will be vindicated yet again and ESR will continue to look like a washed up genius whose unable to predict the future as presciently as Armstrong because of ESR’s ideologically biased analysis versus Armstrong‘s objective computerized machine learning on huge historical and current data sets.

[1] Indeed Armstrong does often have typos and even thought typos, but he is writing several blog posts per day and ESR a blog post every few days or weeks. Armstrong (similar to myself) is not renown for his writing skills, but rather for the insights and research he provides.

[cripperz]

...

Martin Armstrong is a financial, well, forecaster might be the right term, who has written extensively on historical patterns of economics.

He has a checkered past (I know that he went to jail for contempt of court, but what I have read it seems that was an injustice), but there is no doubt that he has introduced new concepts for us to read and analyze.  While in jail, he produced a number of interesting papers looking at asset prices through history, including from ANCIENT history.  He is one of the few who looks at cyclicality (time patterns) as well as a MACRO view of the markets (that is, he does not look at the price of gold alone, he looks at everything else too -- with a supercomputer).

He is now out of jail and has set-up shop as a macro-consulting company.  On most days (including today, Saturday) he publishes a few easy-to-digest items looking at various issues of the day.  His blog:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog

What finally moved me today to start this thread is his post was his very interesting piece (from today) "Money -- Credit -- Debt & Derivatives".  It looks like derivatives are as old as money itself (maybe older!), take a look at the article:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/31401

*   *   *

I have been in various threads here at the forum where Armstrong's material has come up.

I look forward to reading your views on his ideas, and his proposed solutions (also controversial).

Where does he talk about Bitcoin though? No offense, but all of this research is on fiat currency which is doomed to fail.