Martin Armstrong Discussion

[Strike Eagle 26]

his claim at the end of 2019,

It should not necessarily be at 2019. "When" is not defined at his post.

@Strike Eagle 26

What if Dow makes a high in May but does not elect any reversal?

If it does then that could be a good place to short the market. But It can still go against you due to a Cycle Inversion or a Cycle Cancellation. Elected reversals would give you a clear buy or sell signal and you can trade those with the most confidence.

@bikefront
It can be used as a confirmation tool with the reversals but have noticed it being wrong a number of times but usually on the indices.
We did elect 2 daily bullish reversals for Crude Oil on the 22nd so that implied a bounce.


The reversal system will say "Dbi" next to the number if that reversal is in fact a double which is very rare I have only seen it once before and never seen a triple.

[1714126498]

1714126498

[1714126498]

1714126498

[1714126498]

1714126498

[s29]

PRIVATE BLOG: Domestic v International Perspective
Posted Apr 24, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

PRIVATE BLOG: Domestic v International Perspective Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, [...]
Read More

    Stock Indicies

Private Blog: The Shift From Public to Private – US Share Market
Posted Apr 24, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

PRIVATE BLOG: The Shift From Public to Private – US Share Market Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for [...]


Anyone got summaries on his latest private blog posts?

[trc4949]

the latest blog post of armstrong talking about how all these huge amounts of money coming in from europe to usa sounds like capitulation right at the EXACT top in the market.   We have pluto retrograde April 24th with a 1 day orb on each side.  The top should be in either today, or as of yesterday....

[trulycoined]

The number of unimaginable idiots on this thread are staggering. No wonder they are the very audience of Marti the Charlatan.
How long is it going to take for you brainless parrots to finally realize there is no AI system, no supercomputer, no offices, no employees, no nothing. It's just a one man show. You are only bubbling about his supercomputer, AI, etc because he told you so. There is no proof of anything because MA didn't present any evidence whatsoever (just empty claims) because nothing of what he claims exists.

Now, because you are not able to think and analyze, I will do it for you once again. All famous hedge-funds and investment management firms like Renaissance Technologies, DE Shaw, etc. have been throwing literally $billions and hundreds of PhDs into IT systems, AI, etc. for years. Yet they still don't have anything close to a credible AI system, a supercomputer or whatever you call it and they still don't beat the market consistently.

And then you have:
1. Uneducated 70+ y.o. convicted felon
2. Lost all the money (both of his and his clients') on bad trades, cheated (stole the remaining), get caught, spent years in prison
3. Completely broke
3. Never knew how to code, literally illiterate, ignorant and delusional with enormous ego
4. Runs his very poorly made blog on free wordpress site

Who claims without any proof whatsoever that he has singlehandedly! wrote! the program code! that collects! (from where?) all the capital flows data! in real-time!  Even the IMF does not have all the information and collects it with a month+ lag. There is no such entity in the world that has the capital flows data in real-time.

And you idiots take every word from this pathetic charlatan no matter how ridiculous they are, worship him, waste years following him and keep buying his bullshit conferences, reports and subscriptions. And frankly you fully deserve it.

My first post, and hopefully this will be of interest in the Martin Armstrong legitimacy debate:

Background
There is some truth in the quoted words above, even though I have paid $$$$ to attend MA's WEC in Orlando (will explain more about that below) and still read his blog daily. I do enjoy following MA's work, but still question everything and accept his 8.6 cycle might be elaborate and highly convincing disinformation/hoax. It is similar to any other bait and switch swindle, where you feed your audience fact, fact, lie. They are then easier to influence and extract money from.

Much of MAs work appears to be based on the age old social theory of historicism, only MA has now codified it into a "workable" system - allegedly using AI and a computer system. Interestingly, Plato, and his student - SOCRATES - also followed this theory. So his theory/system isn't even new by historical standards. You could argue it is just a rehash of age old social theories.

The other major theory that the West/political elites actually practise is individualism/situational logic, which is also what most economists and traders "subscribe" to. That also makes MA somewhat unique. And that fundamentally is at the core of this entire debate.


Lies?
I recall a blog post by MA where he explained their new offices were "just about complete":
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/new-offices-are-just-about-completed/

As the OP explains, that may well be complete BS. Further investigation (as can be seen in the image on MA's blog) is this is the BB&T building in St Pete. This has virtual office facilities, so any one-man band business can thus claim a prestigious address. Moreover, I found this after a 30s Google search:

https://www.regus.ru/en-ru/virtual-office/united-states/florida/st-petersburg/florida-st-petersburg-first-central-tower

And it is exactly the same image. I then quickly took a look at the holding (Inc.) company:

AE Global Solutions

And could only find one address in Florida:
15600 FL-699
Redington Beach, Florida

That is a residential address, and it probably is MA's house. If you take a look at Google street view and look back at the house adjacent to the driveway, you can see a BMW i8, which MA even mentions he owns in some of his blog posts. Hence, his business premises consist of:

1. His home
2. At best, a virtual office.

Moreover, payments for Socrates are taken from an FZ LLZ entity. That is an Abu Dhabi based business and is done so for tax reasons. Again, you can be a one man band and easily set up such a thing.

In terms of "global organisation" with office space, I think that is a lie.

The question is, why? When dealing with such controversial subjects as economics, trading and finance, credibility is ESSENTIAL.


Wealth?
One would expect MA to be a billionaire at the least what with his knowledge and (alleged) prowess at trading. Granted many super wealthy people live relatively modest lives so as not to attract attention, or simply because material wealth does not interest them, but but if the above is indeed MA's residence, it doesn't look particularly fitting for someone who must have huge wealth.

Also, the fact he charges so much for the WEC, his reports and subscriptions also suggests someone is in need of maximising their income - even though MA explains money is of little interest to him. Perhaps he really is incredibly wealthy, but just plays it down owing to what I explained above: he doesn't want the attention and prefers a simple, modest life.

Of course, I am not saying anything should be free or even low cost - far from it. Quality products and services should justify their price points. However, even a basic sub to Socrates at $15 a month seems a bit steep as you literally only get a global map of capital flows, some (not all) private blog posts, and market watch functionality that is inferior to even free services. Charging almost $3k for a two-day event ticket also seems a bit steep, even though it is a good event with lots of genuinely interesting talking points.


Potential peers?
I have also looked into whether anyone else subscribes into MA's theories and thinking. I found something.

A book was published in 2016 by three Russians:
Leonid Grinin
Andrey Korotayev
Arno Tausch

Called:

Economic Cycles, Crises, and the Global Periphery

I am currently reading through. Here is what is interesting: the above authors also published a work named:

Social Macroevolution: Growth of the World System Integrity and a System of Phase Transitions

Granted "phase transition" is not a term AE invented, but he does use it to explain financial models, where it is most commonly used in the world of physics.

IF MA is somewhat of a charlatan, then I wonder if he might be plagiarising the work of relatively unknown socioeconomic professors in foreign lands who get VERY little media exposure in the West? That way, he would also get away with it.



Attending the WEC in Orlando
I attended Martin Armstrong's WEC in Orlando last year. It is pricey, plus the flight to the US and accommodation. I also met him briefly and asked to his ear - being a natural sceptic of everything - how his model could be "accurate" where if it is based on datapoints, he does not have all the datapoints of everything on the planet. More data = more accuracy. That is universally true of any scientific pursuit.

At best, his model should then simply give an indication of a potential event based on SAMPLED data. Therefore, it cannot be correct all of the time.

His response to my question was somewhat defensive, and he explained it is accurate as it has called so many major global events to the day. His body language to my question was also defensive - he seemed taken aback that anyone would dare question his model, especially as an event attendee.

Also at the event, there was a lot of chatter among attendees of the significance of "pi day". That was Nov 21 2018 and nothing significant happened. It was then explained away as a "turning point" and not necessarily something major like a stock market crash or a war. While I can accept that if you understand the ECM, why not instead call out the actual flashpoints, rather than the lighted tinderbox "moments"?

Others I spoke to had similar opinions to those on this board. Parts of MA's work on economics, history and law was solid. But Socrates itself was ambiguous, difficult to understand or possibly worth dismissing altogether and following your own trading strategies based on experience.

This did make me question MA's Socrates model.

However, I will add I found the event very interesting and have no regrets going. If anything, it allowed for further scrutiny of MA and his model. The talk about global socioeconomics and what the future has in store was fascinating. It was well put together and delivered, was logical and I do believe much of what was discussed will end up happening.

Would I attend another? I was considering it, but then ultimately, how much new content will be added over 6 months (Rome WEC) or 12 (Orlando WEC)? I am not convinced so much would have changed it justifies another $2750 for a ticket, plus travel and accommodation. I would rather put that money into an investment and accept not being 100% up to date with the latest global economic insights from MA, which is where I still feel he has the most value.

Would I use Socrates or his prophesied calls to trade my money? Probably not, but then I am a conservative, "safe risk" type of investor.


What I do like
MA himself seems like a decent guy and I do enjoy reading up about his work regarding economics, history and the law. I also do believe in the cyclical nature of the universe/physics and how everything is connected. There are repeatable patterns in everything, even totally unconnected systems, and that also agrees with the work of Einstein and Tesla as two examples of prominent, respected and peer reviewed scientists.

However, I still accept that MA does not get everything right. He made a big call that May 2019 would see a significant event. If that comes to pass, then my interest will begin to further wane. The next big call is Jan 2020.

If those two months do indeed see major events unfold, then I will continue to believe he has found something truly groundbreaking - at least his ECM. However, Socrates as a trading platform - the jury is still out. Even MA himself explained that on very short timelines, it is far more difficult to predict anything, simply because less data exists, less volume, and thus volatility is more acute.

Over longer timelines, it does become far easier to predict future events, not least as erratic datapoints are smoothed out and you aren't using such a small sample size of data. Macro-level data is easier to work with than micro-level. That is also why day trading is very high risk vs. value investing.

[s29]

the latest blog post of armstrong talking about how all these huge amounts of money coming in from europe to usa sounds like capitulation right at the EXACT top in the market.   We have pluto retrograde April 24th with a 1 day orb on each side.  The top should be in either today, or as of yesterday....

Thanks.

[MA_talk]

trulycoined, excellent insights! Much appreciated.

The idea that Socrates is able to essentially reconstruct current cycles from ancient ones based on the notion that what has happened before will happen again as produced by ancient interrelated markets is a really good idea. If gold was dropping while interest rates were doing this while another thing was doing that, then the same thing should unfold today. The problem, as you mentioned, was one of incomplete data, akin to the fossil record- Armstrong says that the workings are enough to justify its validity, but if you can't find enough of the ancient coins in sufficient sample sizes across various eras and conditions, then it can lead to faulty conclusions. This is assuming he correctly identified and correctly correlated these factors to the correct degree-if at all. I would like to see his methodology made public, but due to paranoia, I doubt we will. Something crowdsourced would be nice, even if it isn't forecasting financial markets themselves.

I disagree with the idea of short term being harder to forecast than long term, but we can leave that for now. It doesn't really matter either way imo.

Eagle, do you think social sentiment is also fractal like markets? I believe so. When there comes some kind of controversy or issue of the day, there are some kind of ideas and such that most people won't cross- but there are catalysts that seem to change the way people think about them and suddenly they change. And the new conservatism becomes old and outdated. Social sentiment can have support which becomes resistance, even in concrete terms- but being able to define and isolate them is the hard part, I think.

trulycoined, and bikefront,

  My personal opinion on economics is that predicting short-term is actually a lot easier than long-term, based on my background in science.  Economic prediction is like weather forecast.  Almost all sciences were done using linear first-order models, because that is the easiest to handle in math.  However, the world is NOT linear.  There are many second/third order effects, and there are also some nonlinear phenomenon like chaos, etc.  With great advances in science, now we can predict the weather fairly accurate within 5 days of time-frame in general.  However, the butterfly effects still exist.  In terms of science and engineering, what exactly happens on butterfly effects mean that a TINY difference in the initial condition at a certain time, whether it's due to a butterfly flapping its wing, or due to insufficiency amount of accuracy of the measurement, can get amplified so many times through the entire weather (or economics) model that it is essentially IMPOSSIBLE to make any accurate predictions beyond a certain time-frame (say like 5-days of weather).

  I don't understand why people on this forum give credit to Armstrong on saying that economics can be done in the same way, or anything related to this idea of having fractals everywhere, etc.  If there is enough data, and the data has enough accuracy, it should be definitely possible to predict what will happen in the next minute of all the stock prices, given some accurate economic modeling.  However, as of today, I don't think we have sufficient and accurate global capital data, nor accurate economic models.

  What I don't buy AT ALL is when Armstrong claims that long-term predictions are "easier" than short-term predictions.  I think it's only "easier" for him because people don't keep track of his failed calls, while he highlights the correct calls.  And my reason is more based on science, borrowing from weather forecasts.  While there are certain nonlinear events such as strange attractor in chaos that CAN emerge even given big differences in the initial conditions, MANY more other events will diverge as time keeps marching forward.  The strange attractor phenomenon is essentially the opposite of butterfly effects.  Because of the non-linearity in the system (whether it's weather or economics), some differences get amplified over time, while some get reduced over time.  It is NOT linear.  However, identifying such strange attractor are difficult because solving the equations are in general not possible in the close form.  So ASSUMING that such strange attractor exists in the forward timeframe, and that you can actually identify it, then predicting that for the long term will be possible.  OTHERWISE, most other things follow the butterfly effects, and it is NOT possible to predict things BEYOND a certain time-frame, simply due to not enough bits for numerical precision, but most often, due to inaccuracy of the data measurement.

  Armstrong's "energy" model, and any other terms that he borrows from science, is just what he "says".  There is no validation of any kinds, nor review by ANY peer-based journals.  It's just his "claim".  The golden proof is to see the model producing profitable trades, instead of ambiguous commentary.  The profitable trades must be able to stand up to statistical measurement as beyond any reasonable doubts that the trades weren't just "lucky", but instead, there was something behind it.  Science is advanced this way, peer-reviewed, and always repeatable by ANY other scientists.  If only Armstrong or just 0.1% of the subscribers can trade profitably from Socrates, that showed nothing, except that they are just good (or lucky) traders via chances.

  If there is a physicist on this forum, I welcome him to add or correct my above comments.

[trulycoined]

trulycoined, excellent insights! Much appreciated.

The idea that Socrates is able to essentially reconstruct current cycles from ancient ones based on the notion that what has happened before will happen again as produced by ancient interrelated markets is a really good idea. If gold was dropping while interest rates were doing this while another thing was doing that, then the same thing should unfold today. The problem, as you mentioned, was one of incomplete data, akin to the fossil record- Armstrong says that the workings are enough to justify its validity, but if you can't find enough of the ancient coins in sufficient sample sizes across various eras and conditions, then it can lead to faulty conclusions. This is assuming he correctly identified and correctly correlated these factors to the correct degree-if at all. I would like to see his methodology made public, but due to paranoia, I doubt we will. Something crowdsourced would be nice, even if it isn't forecasting financial markets themselves.

I disagree with the idea of short term being harder to forecast than long term, but we can leave that for now. It doesn't really matter either way imo.

Eagle, do you think social sentiment is also fractal like markets? I believe so. When there comes some kind of controversy or issue of the day, there are some kind of ideas and such that most people won't cross- but there are catalysts that seem to change the way people think about them and suddenly they change. And the new conservatism becomes old and outdated. Social sentiment can have support which becomes resistance, even in concrete terms- but being able to define and isolate them is the hard part, I think.

@bikefront
You make a brilliant comparison with the fossil record. And that is EXACTLY why I questioned MAs model to his face. He was dismissive and I wasn't left particularly convinced. In fact, it was that moment I begun to question my opinions of him and his work, only because I work with data on a daily basis in my job. It is in advertising (though I trade in equities in my spare time). And even an industry that is this basic and goes no where near physics or advanced mathematics - you NEED lots of data to create accurate forecasts or use it to make decisions with confidence. Why MA would be so dismissive of that I thought odd considering my work is high school level at most, and even I know the pitfalls of sampled and incomplete data.

On a global level across every conceivable datapoint you can think of, is it really possible to use the historical coin record, plus what socioeconimic data exists (allegedly fed into his AI machine), to make prophetic calls on the future? I don't know. But here is the thing:

Working in advertising, and also investing in the stock market, I do know human behaviour is predictable. Like how you can predict the behaviour of a simple animal, the same can be done with humans, it is just more subtle.

I have for long felt MAs ECM is simply a way of predicting human behaviour, which is also why it might at times become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It thus has little to do with physics or even Einstein-level mathematics. It is measuring human behaviour and predicting what that behaviour will do next. That IS easier to predict than something that requires untold volumes of data and an AI supercomputer.

It also might be why his predictions are sometimes correct, and sometimes wrong. On a simplistic level, imagine trying to predict where a dog might run if it had 50 acres of fields. Now predict what might happen if it hadn't eaten for a day and was presented with a sausage, while 50 acres of field was ahead of it...

I will explain more about that theory and (to keep it more on topic with this site) how it relates to bitcoin end of this post!...


@MA_talk
I see your point and actually agree about short term being easier to predict. However, I am thinking about very short term and specifically trading the markets. That is difficult.

Likewise, I get your longer term observation as well, but then perhaps for major events where there is less that can heavily influence the immanency of that event (e.g. a stock market crash, recession, etc), then maybe that is easier to predict?

If only his predictions were logged on a public G Sheet, then there would be red hot evidence to either prove or disprove his theories and predictions. He produces so much blog content, and it is so difficult to find old blog posts (perhaps why his site is so poor), piecing together everything takes too much time, and most of us have better things to do.

You write:
"it is NOT possible to predict things BEYOND a certain time-frame, simply due to not enough bits for numerical precision, but most often, due to inaccuracy of the data measurement"

This is spot on. Once again, in my basic line of work, I must deal with sampled or incomplete data and the major issue is no system is infallible and no data collection is accurate. Thus, at times, digital measurement is no more accurate than chalk and slate. Strangely, few people seem to realise this, always seduced by technology, and especially through this digital revolution.

Where this ties into MA: how can his model be so accurate, where there is missing data points, data that may have been recorded inaccurately or even faked, and so on and so on? That is why I asked him that question at the WEC. If poor data hygiene is not good enough for my very basic industry, how on Earth could it be good enough for a model that predicts major events in human history? Unless there is far more to his ECM than he is letting on, no one knows and probably never will. That said, I do think there is something with his ECM. May 2019 and Jan 2020 will cement my opinion. His Socrates might just be a beard to try and legitimise his model better, or scoop up some easy cash for his "posterity" - a word he often uses on his blog.

I do see the link between unconnected systems, which is where I do share some arguments/theories with MA. In fact, I got into him having stumbled across his blog around 2016 and found him writing about things I had been speaking about for years. As one example, I can see similar patterns in an ad platform vs a stocks and shares trading platform. Likewise, there are similar laws of physics that - when measured and charted - are true of a car engine, an ad platform, and a stock market.

I think that is why MA describes the universe as fractal, and that too is found all across nature. It is just difficult to prove and nor am I a physicist, so should I ever write about this, I would end up with similar levels of criticism and no real way to back up my theories. It would just look like junk science.


Does the ECM just predict human behaviour: the bitcoin example?
First I have not invested in bitcoin and see the hysteria of it similar to popular penny shares, where the latter was something I used to invest in many years ago, and found out the hard way. If memory serves me right, MA did correctly call the high in Bitcoin end of 2017.

I saw ALL the same behaviours with penny shares as I did with bitcoin when it exploded into Jan 2018, and also had a very good idea as to where it was heading as the smart money had long sold up. Friend of mine piled in - I warned them - and they are now nursing a large loss. Investors fallacy.

Working in advertising (and investing on the side), I am only too aware of human behaviour and seasonality (more applicable to advertising). The latter in particular can be a huge mover of performance. Think about selling children toys in February instead of Xmas; outdoor plants during autumn and winter. You get the idea.

With that, I commonly check Google Trends. While that is not an "accurate" resource, as its name suggests, it is ideal for spotting trends. That is useful in my work where there might be unexplained drops in performance.

Back in Dec 2017, I checked Google Trends for worldwide bitcoin search volume and noticed it mirrored almost exactly the real bitcoin price. Keep in mind I knew little about bitcoin and had barely even read up about it. My friend was screaming about it, which spiked my curiosity (he too works in advertising). I know many others might have done this, but it wasn't until a few months later that respected analysts in the field had noticed the link with the bitcoin price and Google Trends and articles were published about it.

Another friend worked in banking. I told him about this at the time and he was unconvinced G Trends was a leading indicator of BTC price. However, he had access to Bloomberg and plotted the volume of published articles vs BTC price and became more convinced there might be something in the hysteria, where the price then played catch up.

Here is the link to predictable human behaviour and the price of bitcoin:
1. You can only buy bitcoin online. There was no other "route to market" if you wanted to purchase it unlike say "real" commodities or equities, which can be purchased via telephone or institutionally, adding further volatility and unpredictability. That meant Google Trends could be relied upon as an accurate indicator as there was only one measure: online.
2. Bitcoin is just bitcoin. It is a medium of exchange and not a business or physical commodity where countless other variables may affect the price.
3. VOLUME was also key, where if trading volume was high + Google Trends search volume spiked, it became much easier to predict where the price would go. If trading volume is low and Google Trends showed a spike in search volume, it becomes much more unpredictable.
4. Then my own understanding of predictable human behaviour, as observed with penny shares (the same thing was going to happen - the masses buy the high, and end up selling the low), and I will reference my dog and sausage analogy again. The fact it could only be purchased online also made it easier to predict the price using an indicator like G Trends.


That example is what I think the ECM is doing. It might just be finding those predictable human behaviours and then MA articulates it into his future prophecies.

One final example of this: November 2017, Oxford Street, London. Someone ran out of an underground stop in great distress. Someone saw this person and became distressed, then another, and suddenly the entire street was running in all directions. Said banker friend was actually caught up in the pandemonium (he was driving) and messaged our WhatsApp group adamant it was a terror attack. It was a false alarm! A classic case of herd mentality and perfectly illustrates my point about predictable human behaviours, and also how human nature never changes after 1000s of years, even with today's tech.

So to MA's ECM model. Maybe he too understands it is easy to predict human nature/behaviour, but needs a scientific explanation to articulate it and give it "credibility", hence the 8.6/pi explanation?

Everything else is just well researched e.g. economics, history, law, the environment, of which I do think he is highly credible. However, he DOES have credibility as he advised major political figures, and allegedly still does to this day. If Farage is attending the Rome WEC next week, then he must have connections and be well respected. Those political figures would not be hanging around with a fraudster. Thus, I find the harshest criticisms of his work on this thread unjust, unless he is the male equivalent of the Theranos CEO, only he still hasn't been found out yet.

The best thing with any of this is be sceptical and question everything.

[MA_talk]

@trulycoined,

  I have tried to debunk Armstrong's ECM model several times on this forum.  You could jump back to pg.255 of this thread, and see that his ECM model is not as accurate as Armstrong claimed, down to the "very day".  In fact, the number Armstrong is using already tell you the inaccuracy.  It's 8.6, or 8.615, or a 8-digit number that I can't remember, but posted here in the past.  The inaccuracy can easily be 60 days in 86 years.  Human history is MUCH longer than that, and the dates published by Armstrong could easily be off by 3000 days, or some 10 years off.  So HOW can any long-term predictions be made, if the date can be off by 10 years?

  I also noticed that Armstrong never talked about PI date before 2009 or 2010 (if I remember correctly), which is 3.14 year from the ECM date.  I felt like that he was just adding more dates on the number line, so that just in case anything happens, he could assign to it.  Since from a 8.6 year cycle, you could already get 8 points by dividing the 8.6 years evenly into 8.  PI, or even 2*PI, will simply be two more points on top of that.  And then claiming "fractal" structure, he could add or subtract 8.6 months, weeks, days, on top of every time point.  What's worse is that there are a few instances that he even do multiply of these "magic" numbers.

  By the strict definition of a mathematical fractal, which is an affine transformation, the way Armstrong handles the 8.6 year/month/week/day is ALREADY invalid for fractal.  Nature is NATURE.  Do you think that a butterfly or a bee knows that there are SEVEN days in a week, and TWELVE months in a year (when all months are NOT the same length)?  I cannot concur that 7 day is anything special in nature.

  But then, he even multiplies the magical number.  That, right there, seems to be just making up numbers to fit stuffs together.  Sorry that I don't have a link to show that, but I have seen that about 3 times.

  So if you have a number line, filled with all the dots, combining from 8.6 year/month/week/day, and when 8.6 can be 8.61 sometimes, and 8.615 some other time, and 8.61533, etc.  and multiple of that 8.6x6=51.2, which can be 52 also, and then you mixed all the different number values, WOW, I bet you can ALWAYS find the right combination of numbers for all kinds of dates and events.

  That is not science.  A scientist will always tell you exactly HOW MUCH his measurement or prediction can be off.  He won't do his math by changing 8.6 to 8.615, or vice versa.  The value of PI is exact.  If he needs a higher precision, he uses more precise value of PI.  The fact that a scientist uses just 3.14 in his calculation, already tells you and him that the final result cannot have an accuracy of 4 digits.

  Oh, but Armstrong is special.

[trulycoined]

@MA_talk
Yes, I agree with you on this. Sometimes his ECM makes no sense and completely random multiples or additions of 8.6 (or its divisions) are used to "map" the link between various events using his model.

It is confusing and that is perhaps where his machine (or model) has got it wrong. He then has to make it all up.

I have observed this on his blog and even in some of his reports, and it makes me wonder if he has seen those right-wing conspiracy websites where all manner of totally irrelevant things are broken into numbers that then add up to some important occultist number!

There are some events that he (or his alleged machine) does call right. However, is that simply things that for those who are well connected, or who understand socioeconomics and human behaviour to a deep level would have predicted in any case?

I have watched his Forecaster film. It was interesting and that also highlights some of the predictions that did indeed come true. There is also a strong link to Russia, also explained in the film. I know the left wing political conspiracy theory about collusion with Trump is complete nonsense, but likewise, the Russian's are famous for their dezinformatsiya, so that too makes me wonder:

Is the ECM an elaborate and highly convincing hoax that might even influence Western socioeconomics, thus helping a hostile nation?

That is my deepest criticism of MA, if I peel myself away from a general respect of his work and theories.

I will stress though, I do think there is something with his ECM. It is just frustrating that he is so protective over properly explaining it to the world; it is not always correct; and thus that will naturally lead to suspicion, criticism and ridicule. I don't lap up every word, though when I first found his work, I was sold. It was intellectual pornography. However, I have always questioned everything, and it's a good test of character to question things you firmly believe in, hence my quest to find out what others might think of MA's work rather than being stuck in a vacuum.

[Strike Eagle 26]

@bikefront

 Day trading is a full time job, position trading always makes more money and just think how much you must pay in fees.  

 the longer term rarely undergoes cycle inversions .Longer term forecasting is much easier to predict just look at how accurate the ECM has been. For example the 1989.95 ECM turning point pinpointed the Nikkei high that December. the collapse into 1994.25 marked the precise day of the low for the S&P 500. the 2007.15 turning point called the high in Nikkei, Dow Jones, S&P 500. The real estate market lined up perfectly with the 2007.15 turning point and that was indicating the CONCENTRATION OF CAPITAL.

Understanding the ECM(business cycle)  is critical and is the key to moving with the overall trend, since many markets will hit important highs or lows at the top/bottom of the ECM.  
Quote Armstrong
"Money(capital) migrates like a herd of wild animals(it runs together in trends and it will suddenly panic and change direction) - such as the bubble in Tokyo in 1989.95. This is the essence of the ECM.  the model(ECM) is not  based upon any individual market. It is the model that tracks  ebbs and flows of capital on a global scale. The interesting aspect of this model is that each and every market has its own model. Only when it lines up with the model(ECM) does this suggest that a particular market is going to be the target of capital flows."

with the ECM "we are able to see where the boom and bust will take place by determining which market sector aligns with the major turning points. Of course the 1987 crash(Dow) bottomed to the day with the ECM confirming that was the low. The same took place in 1994 where the U.S. share market bottomed right to the day, once again confirming this was an important low. Therefore, it has been the alignment of the individual market with the major ECM global frequency that determines the outcomes".
("these turning points are important even when not operating precisely to the day for each market.")


So the low of this ECM wave in January  2020 means we are facing a TURNING POINT. This is where we could see an important low in gold form potentially just under 1000.
There will be big opportunities as the ECM bottoms in January 2020 with potential entry points to hold for years at least until the peak of that wave in 2024.
 
I noted some of martins predictions.
"It certainly looks like we are headed to a commodity boom between 2020 and 2024.(08/29/2018)
"Our computer is projecting a very serious decline in sunspot activity. This will be the backdrop to the rise in agricultural prices we see between 2020 and 2024. "

[trulycoined]

@bikefront

 Day trading is a full time job, position trading always makes more money and just think how much you must pay in fees.  

 the longer term rarely undergoes cycle inversions .Longer term forecasting is much easier to predict just look at how accurate the ECM has been. For example the 1989.95 ECM turning point pinpointed the Nikkei high that December. the collapse into 1994.25 marked the precise day of the low for the S&P 500. the 2007.15 turning point called the high in Nikkei, Dow Jones, S&P 500. The real estate market lined up perfectly with the 2007.15 turning point and that was indicating the CONCENTRATION OF CAPITAL.

Understanding the ECM(business cycle)  is critical and is the key to moving with the overall trend, since many markets will hit important highs or lows at the top/bottom of the ECM.  
Quote Armstrong
"Money(capital) migrates like a herd of wild animals(it runs together in trends and it will suddenly panic and change direction) - such as the bubble in Tokyo in 1989.95. This is the essence of the ECM.  the model(ECM) is not  based upon any individual market. It is the model that tracks  ebbs and flows of capital on a global scale. The interesting aspect of this model is that each and every market has its own model. Only when it lines up with the model(ECM) does this suggest that a particular market is going to be the target of capital flows."

with the ECM "we are able to see where the boom and bust will take place by determining which market sector aligns with the major turning points. Of course the 1987 crash(Dow) bottomed to the day with the ECM confirming that was the low. The same took place in 1994 where the U.S. share market bottomed right to the day, once again confirming this was an important low. Therefore, it has been the alignment of the individual market with the major ECM global frequency that determines the outcomes".
("these turning points are important even when not operating precisely to the day for each market.")


So the low of this ECM wave in January  2020 means we are facing a TURNING POINT. This is where we could see an important low in gold form potentially just under 1000.
There will be big opportunities as the ECM bottoms in January 2020 with potential entry points to hold for years at least until the peak of that wave in 2024.
 
I noted some of martins predictions.
"It certainly looks like we are headed to a commodity boom between 2020 and 2024.(08/29/2018)
"Our computer is projecting a very serious decline in sunspot activity. This will be the backdrop to the rise in agricultural prices we see between 2020 and 2024. "

Yes, the latter was stressed a lot in the 2018 WEC. I agree with MA's observations about man made global warming (renamed "climate change") and solar activity. Already we are seeing crop failures globally, and that will increase food prices.

He explained there would be a commodity boom 2020-2024 and the CA and AU stock markets would rocket (commodity-based economies), while services based (Europe and even US) would enter bearish territory.

That was the prediction and it was not just agriculture with a sun entering a new maunder minimum: it was all commodities, especially oil and mining.

[trulycoined]

From the MA private blog:


"The May target we had which was also the European elections, offers also a Directional Change. So we are looking at new highs, but then a pull back. Nevertheless, the broader-term is shaping up as we have warned. What lies ahead is a significant shift in long-term trend. We are headed into uncharted waters. Clearly, we are headed to where no human has dared to even think about for they never thought this was possible.

I believe Socrates will be the only thing that can steer through this quagmire between now and the next Monetary Crisis Cycle."


So the prediction is new highs (NYSE) and then a pullback. That is based on lots of uncertainty in Europe because of the EU elections and political issues in Japan.


Thoughts?

[DigiLab]

I don't get all this bashing on Armstrong. Before finding out about Armstrong, I was Austrian school of economy. Still though not feeling comfortable, because some of the things were unfolding opposite of what Austrians (or any other economic school for that matter) was preaching. And that's how I found Armstrong, this was the only guy who got the things right, regarding the aftermath of the last GFC. After I found out about him, went back on his blog, and check his previous writings. Following him for few years now, and I don't think there is anyone else close to him, who can explain economy subject better (I give Taleb a credit though). All these economy schools now appear to be Mickey Mouse comparing to Armstrong teachings.
Now, about the trading. Would I use Armstrong for daily trading, more likely that not, I would not, primarily, but rely on other trading tools. His medium, long term predictions, hell yes. And definitely would like to have access to his reversal numbers, on a bigger time scale (weekly and up).
He mentioned few times that he is writing a book. I hope he will finish it and publish it, can't wait for it.

[trulycoined]

I don't get all this bashing on Armstrong. Before finding out about Armstrong, I was Austrian school of economy. Still though not feeling comfortable, because some of the things were unfolding opposite of what Austrians (or any other economic school for that matter) was preaching. And that's how I found Armstrong, this was the only guy who got the things right, regarding the aftermath of the last GFC. After I found out about him, went back on his blog, and check his previous writings. Following him for few years now, and I don't think there is anyone else close to him, who can explain economy subject better (I give Taleb a credit though). All these economy schools now appear to be Mickey Mouse comparing to Armstrong teachings.
Now, about the trading. Would I use Armstrong for daily trading, more likely that not, I would not, primarily, but rely on other trading tools. His medium, long term predictions, hell yes. And definitely would like to have access to his reversal numbers, on a bigger time scale (weekly and up).
He mentioned few times that he is writing a book. I hope he will finish it and publish it, can't wait for it.

Found this review of MA's forecasts:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i0gU95pkSg_oAGyxhxtQlZHkGPVkywAH/view?usp=sharing


Makes for an interesting read and well referenced. He (or more specifically, his "computer") has been wrong on a number of occasions.

I am not trying to dig dirt, have met MA and do think he's a nice guy, though by no means perfect. I was considering going to the Rome WEC, but feel being sceptical of everything is sensible, which is how I found this thread. I was loathe to paying out thousands where that money might be better spent investing in equities, and especially if the ECM is only partially correct, then I really am losing interest. It isn't worth forking out thousands of dollars for each year.

It would appear his model isn't much better than any other well researched economist who understands history and repeatable outcomes of human nature. That is something I observe daily in both work and life - you just have to know what to look for.

I do think his grasp of socioeconomic issues is world class. I truly have learnt a lot about why the EU is so flawed to potentially what might happen with Western Civilisation. His ECM called the date on the latter, I just wonder if it will be a repeat of 2015.75 and it will come to pass without much fanfare.

[whizzledog]

Now i just watched it for myself, the little numbers are indeed double Reversals, maybe the markets are getting crazy and this was an old statement. ?

[Strike Eagle 26]

I don't get all this bashing on Armstrong. Before finding out about Armstrong, I was Austrian school of economy. Still though not feeling comfortable, because some of the things were unfolding opposite of what Austrians (or any other economic school for that matter) was preaching. And that's how I found Armstrong, this was the only guy who got the things right, regarding the aftermath of the last GFC. After I found out about him, went back on his blog, and check his previous writings. Following him for few years now, and I don't think there is anyone else close to him, who can explain economy subject better (I give Taleb a credit though). All these economy schools now appear to be Mickey Mouse comparing to Armstrong teachings.
Now, about the trading. Would I use Armstrong for daily trading, more likely that not, I would not, primarily, but rely on other trading tools. His medium, long term predictions, hell yes. And definitely would like to have access to his reversal numbers, on a bigger time scale (weekly and up).
He mentioned few times that he is writing a book. I hope he will finish it and publish it, can't wait for it.

Found this review of MA's forecasts:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i0gU95pkSg_oAGyxhxtQlZHkGPVkywAH/view?usp=sharing


Makes for an interesting read and well referenced. He (or more specifically, his "computer") has been wrong on a number of occasions.

I am not trying to dig dirt, have met MA and do think he's a nice guy, though by no means perfect. I was considering going to the Rome WEC, but feel being sceptical of everything is sensible, which is how I found this thread. I was loathe to paying out thousands where that money might be better spent investing in equities, and especially if the ECM is only partially correct, then I really am losing interest. It isn't worth forking out thousands of dollars for each year.

It would appear his model isn't much better than any other well researched economist who understands history and repeatable outcomes of human nature. That is something I observe daily in both work and life - you just have to know what to look for.

I do think his grasp of socioeconomic issues is world class. I truly have learnt a lot about why the EU is so flawed to potentially what might happen with Western Civilisation. His ECM called the date on the latter, I just wonder if it will be a repeat of 2015.75 and it will come to pass without much fanfare.

those numbers are all technical numbers nothing based on the reversal
System, that pdf is a joke actually trying to use the breakout-line as hard evidence what a disgrace.

Of course Armstrong has been wrong countless of times but that was simply his opinion and him speculating on what he thought might happen at that time which is of course is subject to change. The reversal system has never been wrong and if you knew anything that would be your focus.

If you think that report has any credibility you have failed to understand how this model is even supposed to be used. Armstrong said it himself ultimately my opinion means nothing, JUST PLAY IT BY THE NUMBERS

2015.75 was indeed very significant for many reasons including that fact that
 Quote "Russia invaded Syria on the very day of the Economic Confidence Model, it signaled that Syria would be a focal point of this wave" "Russia gave the U.S. one hour notice before they began bombing both ISIS and rebels who were seeking to overthrow the Syrian government. It is extremely curious that this is beginning precisely on the day of the ECM. Will this prove to be the start of an international war?"


@whizzledog if its a double it will say "Dbi" which is very rare

[DigiLab]

@bikefront
"If the candle has a lot of volume but not a lot of price movement, this implies a reversal, as it necessarily means that the opposite position is being taken. Think about it. If a stock declines by 0.10% and has a volume of 10,000, but later has a decline of the 0.09% and a volume of 20,000 in that candle, this means there was more buyer mixed in than before. More big boys are entering. This can be seen on all timeframes, but it is super easy to see on the 5 min candle."
Golden, Thank You.

@trulycoined
Thank You for sharing MA private blog, golden as well. Now, hmmm?? Directional change can be within the trend (bull taking it higher, bear taking it lower). I'm not really following DOW in details, but one thing is certain, lots of volatility. One to assume that would come from the chaos which awaits in front. Looking at the bigger picture (US economy only one performing, e.g. today's GDP), there is no real other place for the money to go, as per Armstrong.
He says "between now and the next Monetary Crisis Cycle.", which means USD higher. So, money will go to USD, will go to DOW, even to US Treasuries, and when SHTF, Gold.

[DigiLab]

Idk, don't have access to the Reversals to try them out in that fashion, just what Armstrong is providing on his blog.

[Strike Eagle 26]

I understand that Socrates is better by trading longer timeframes on the Reversals. Can we trade Daily level Reversals with the same level of accuracy and reliability as the Weekly+ level? I also assume that narrowly elected Reversals are better, especially with the Daily timeframe, as you have less movement to work with, so it might be better to trade the Weekly+ level. Just wanted to know. Perhaps if tehre is a big Daily level gap, then it can be better traded.

Yes daily reversals are also very accurate only the market will often gravitate towards the weekly/monthly reversals going into the end of a given week or month.  If you want to day trade then the daily reversals work best since the expected move should occur within 1 to 3 days.. Usually the very next day.  If the market closes well above or below a elected reversal it will often retest it before moving in the expected direction.

The GMW can be used to alert you to potential big moves.   regarding the array "NORMALLY one turning point is followed by the OPPOSITE event on the next." its best to start from the monthly and work your way down to the daily, this includes the reversals

[stockpile]

https://www.screencast.com/t/nXryq1OAog

Hello all

Started with Socrates pro version the last month to track the Dow, today was the first Daily Major reversal elected since following.
Plan is to follow and track reversals to see how it shakes out.
Interesting how today's high tagged the trendline from the Oct high and the same slope as the trendline from Jan 2018 high.

cheers