|
|
Gumbi
Copper Member
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 168
Merit: 0
|
 |
July 12, 2019, 10:14:05 PM |
|
It's true Dan we love Armstrong he has made us a fortune over the years. We can't thank him enough for his contribution to humanity nobody can take that away from him. The business cycle is one of the most significant discoveries by Armstrong and will be remembered long after he has gone. |
|
|
|
|
trulycoined
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 85
Merit: 8
|
|
July 12, 2019, 10:28:54 PM |
|
@Gumbi, you are surely trolling? This is a serious and impartial conversation about MA, not a comedian show. The DOW did not "crash" into October 1st 2015 and nor is there a single news article at the time that reports such a thing. MA was wrong. Again. Arguing against the chart I posted proves either lies or bad eyesight. The bigger "crash" was August 2015, and yet MA argues his model forecasts "to the day". So he was a good two months out and nor was it a crash, it was a correction. The decline in October was also less extreme than the decline mid November 2015, and nor did MA "forecast" that either. You then, jokingly I presume, write: any link posted to be taken seriously will have to come from his website. how can you post evidence from a website other than his blog ? this is absurd.I can evidence real interviews with respected newspapers where MA, with words coming from his mouth, proves his forecasts were wrong and otherwise appears to be making the dates up. This here is an "official" MA blog post on his site that references that De Welt article: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/die-welt-the-construction-of-our-database/Please do keep digging a hole for yourself. And using your argument about his blog being the only "official" source of truth about MA, which is a brilliantly absurd paradox in itself, he explained his model forecast a US recession after 2015.75: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/back-to-the-future/Wrong. Again. Either you work for MA or you are MA, because no one would be this defensive and controverted in their arguments. |
|
|
|
|
nattybear
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 33
Merit: 0
|
|
July 12, 2019, 10:30:41 PM |
|
It's true Dan we love Armstrong he has made us a fortune over the years. We can't thank him enough for his contribution to humanity nobody can take that away from him. The business cycle is one of the most significant discoveries by Armstrong and will be remembered long after he has gone. We 'love' Armstrong... You might want to back off on the kool-aid there. The issue is that you still can't account for all the times MA gets it wrong. It's only once you can reconcile the incorrect predictions that he makes (which are captured in detail across blog) then you can claim his immortality. His contribution to humanity? Spare me the bulls&#t... |
|
|
|
|
DanB1
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 100
Merit: 1
|
|
July 13, 2019, 10:13:15 AM |
|
It's true Dan we love Armstrong he has made us a fortune over the years. We can't thank him enough for his contribution to humanity nobody can take that away from him. The business cycle is one of the most significant discoveries by Armstrong and will be remembered long after he has gone. Haha, it's very hard to believe now that we saw your first trade. Sure, you might not have lost money. But if you did exactly the opposite of what you did (using the Socrates system) you would have made a profit. But anyway, you can show us more although I think we will not see more trades coming. |
|
|
|
|
Gumbi
Copper Member
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 168
Merit: 0
|
|
July 13, 2019, 10:46:16 AM |
|
@Gumbi, you are surely trolling? This is a serious and impartial conversation about MA, not a comedian show. The DOW did not "crash" into October 1st 2015 and nor is there a single news article at the time that reports such a thing. MA was wrong. Again. Arguing against the chart I posted proves either lies or bad eyesight. The bigger "crash" was August 2015, and yet MA argues his model forecasts "to the day". So he was a good two months out and nor was it a crash, it was a correction. The decline in October was also less extreme than the decline mid November 2015, and nor did MA "forecast" that either. You then, jokingly I presume, write: any link posted to be taken seriously will have to come from his website. how can you post evidence from a website other than his blog ? this is absurd.I can evidence real interviews with respected newspapers where MA, with words coming from his mouth, proves his forecasts were wrong and otherwise appears to be making the dates up. This here is an "official" MA blog post on his site that references that De Welt article: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/die-welt-the-construction-of-our-database/Please do keep digging a hole for yourself. And using your argument about his blog being the only "official" source of truth about MA, which is a brilliantly absurd paradox in itself, he explained his model forecast a US recession after 2015.75: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/back-to-the-future/Wrong. Again. Either you work for MA or you are MA, because no one would be this defensive and controverted in their arguments. The ECM is a global economic cycle NOT a stock market model what makes you think the market has to bottom precisely in line with the ECM?. The Dow went down from its high over 2000 points into October 1st, the market was crashing going into the ECM date and this is what we can expect going into 2020 if we are going to see new highs into 2024. 2015.75 was the start of an economic decline not the end. "The model is forecasting NOT a “recession” in the old terms, but an economic decline. " https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/the-gdp-decline-post-2015-75/ post 2015.75 Armstrong never called for a stock market crash in fact he called for new highs. You don't need to be looking at anything other than the ECM target dates which will never change. Are you suggesting that there is no business cycle and that all price movement is in fact random ? |
|
|
|
|
AnonymousCoder
Member
Offline
Activity: 580
Merit: 17
|
|
July 13, 2019, 11:23:12 AM
Last edit: July 20, 2021, 06:34:06 PM by AnonymousCoder |
|
It's true Dan we love Armstrong he has made us a fortune over the years. We can't thank him enough for his contribution to humanity nobody can take that away from him. The business cycle is one of the most significant discoveries by Armstrong and will be remembered long after he has gone.
Martin Armstrong discovered the business cycle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle...
Are you suggesting that there is no business cycle and that all price movement is in fact random ?
...
Who suggested anything that could even be misunderstood as a statement that the business cycle does not exist by saying what? Am I actually responding to a person or is this Socrates gone wild?  Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed. Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud. See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog. Every single defrauded person should report their case, see Where and how to complain |
|
|
|
|
Gumbi
Copper Member
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 168
Merit: 0
|
|
July 13, 2019, 12:40:46 PM |
|
It's true Dan we love Armstrong he has made us a fortune over the years. We can't thank him enough for his contribution to humanity nobody can take that away from him. The business cycle is one of the most significant discoveries by Armstrong and will be remembered long after he has gone.
Martin Armstrong discovered the business cycle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle...
Are you suggesting that there is no business cycle and that all price movement is in fact random ?
...
Who suggested anything that could even be misunderstood as a statement that the business cycle does not exist by saying what? Am I actually responding to a person or is this Socrates gone wild Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud he discovered the 8.615 year cycle. The total number of days within an 8.6-year business cycle is 3141 which is equal to Pi x 1000 the perfect cycle. So you agree with Armstrong that there is a cycle to every market? If so then random price movement simply does not exist I think most people including you believe that market price movement is completely random therefore cycles simply cannot exist in any given market. |
|
|
|
|
AnonymousCoder
Member
Offline
Activity: 580
Merit: 17
|
|
July 13, 2019, 02:18:42 PM
Last edit: July 20, 2021, 06:33:59 PM by AnonymousCoder |
|
...
he discovered the 8.615 year cycle. The total number of days within an 8.6-year business cycle is 3141 which is equal to Pi x 1000 the perfect cycle.
...
So it must be perfect right? The most grotesque and unscientific conclusion from a random coincidence seen in a pair of numbers I have ever seen. He discovered it for himself. Nobody else is using it. Taking the result from this brain dead arithmetic further and make predictions based on it indicates that Martin Armstrong suffers from delusion of grandeur. The proof is in the high number of failed predictions he made based on that number. He keeps doing it again and again without realizing that the fundamental assumption is not only wrong, it is stupid. He does not take the catastrophic result of his scheme as feedback to refine or fix it. Forecast arrays are not the solution. ...
I think most people including you believe that market price movement is completely random therefore cycles simply cannot exist in any given market.
...
Bad thinking. Can you read other people's minds? Do you have a crystal ball? Thank you for writing this. The more you write like this, the more people, even the most retarded people, can see YOUR type of thinking  Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed. Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud. See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog. Every single defrauded person should report their case, see Where and how to complain |
|
|
|
|
psp777
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 81
Merit: 6
|
|
July 13, 2019, 07:01:54 PM |
|
So MA has been calling for a pullback since the January to test the December lows. Then he changed his tune to say there would be a July high and a pullback.
So, MA stated that Technical resistance for the DOW was 27,296. We blew right past that and closed at 27,332. He also stated that this level needed to be exceeded for the "channel move"...so is it time? Or, will this be a temp high? LOL more noise than anything. Should of held my corse position longs when I stepped out in Feb.
|
|
|
|
|
PennyWiseUK
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 4
Merit: 0
|
|
July 14, 2019, 10:36:43 AM |
|
..And these guys; https://integratedwealthmanagement.ca/learned-martin-armstrongs-orlando-conference/'..1) Socrates is NOT supposed to be used as a day-trading platform 2) Socrates should be used in tandem with an existing disciplined framework, including proper diversification, disciplined trade execution, moderate trading frequency, and with very disciplined risk management in place 3) Our managers will utilize Socrates to make sure Client portfolios: Are on the right side of every major currency move Are over-weighted in asset classes that have the best risk : reward potential Avoid major losses from high-risk asset classes, and possibly benefit by shorting these asset classes..' i'm not a trader in any sense. But I use Armstrong as a macro road map and i'm in the green because of it. If i'd listened to someone like Jim Rickards who wrote The Death of the Dollar years ago and pushes gold all the time, I'd be in the red for sure. Kiwibird- great spot, thanks. They REALLY like Martin Armstrong. They say they use Socrates amongst other things but that is quite a bold statement for a financial advisor to make. Maybe they are the company that MA refers to when he says he wants to licence Socrates, but in any event a public relationship exists there currently. Bikefront - yes I used to read Nick Nicolaas blog at Mining Interactive as he posts a lot about Socrates, and in fact says: "Outside of the people directly working directly with Martin Armstrong, I am probably the best person in the world interpreting his work." He even sells his notes at the WECs. I am quite happy to take NN at his word (he says he used to get MA faxes in the 1990s), but he said in one of his own public blog snippets of WEC notes that he nearly fell off his chair when MA said in 2017 (I think) that Gold was not going below $1k per ounce when NN had been forecasting this constantly, no doubt based on his interpretation of MA. So I concluded if this long time devotee of MA cannot fathom Socrates, a non-trader like me has no chance. I was interested in the basic investor service on the 2016 version but was out off by constant updates essentially saying it is not ready; it’s like buying a half built car. Steering might work but what if has no brakes…. I take Anonymous Coder’s point that financial firms might stay away from a licensed version of Socrates but those guys at Integrated Wealth Management have made me consider the point once more. If ANY mutual fund firm put out a Socrates fund that in itself would be an endorsement as it would have had to be scrutinised before the point of launch. Would I put money into such a fund? Sure I would but I would not give it any more money than some of my other funds. And I might even wait until it has a three-year track record like all my other funds. I would not give money to any wealth firm using Socrates because there is no public track record like you have with mutual funds for peer comparison and risk/reward assessment. However even if such a fund were launched in the US it is unlikely to make its way to the UK so perhaps it is wishful thinking but I would follow it with interest. Gumbi / Strike Eagle - thanks for your insights. As you both appear to be close to MA. Can you expand on the possibility of a licensed version of Socrates?Thanks again to ALL posters on their experiences, insights and comments. MA is fascinating. Today’s post about the UFOs. Brilliant! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gumbi
Copper Member
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 168
Merit: 0
|
|
July 14, 2019, 02:29:18 PM
Last edit: July 14, 2019, 02:43:24 PM by Gumbi |
|
If Armstrong said never to anticipate, then how is one to buy the high or sell the low? You can't, unless trading against the Reversals using the timing arrays, which don't work consistently. If Armstrong shorted major highs and bought major lows, then he is ANTICIPATING. And we know how often ANTICIPATING fails. We also know how often Cycle Inversions and other things crop up and make you lose money when you thought you had read everything right.
Please explain MAtalk's argument that Armstrong claims someone made a scooter that breaks the laws of thermodynamics. There is no such thing as perpetual motion machines. I myself tried making a few when I was a child.
We are just going around in circles, as usual. 2015.whateveryawanacallit might have been the beginning...of something which was probably the end of something too, and you can go back and try to make it connect with something else. You can even call it the peak in government if you want. If there is no ACTIONABLE ACTION taken at that point in time, it is completely irrelevant.
At this point, no one except noobs believe in Armstrong. Were it so simple and easy, we would have hordes of counterarguments. Maybe his technical analysis works, but I can easily do the same thing... Reversals are just breakouts of technical points, 1% rule is just support becomes resistance and vice versa.
Again, I challenge anyone to consistently post live trades using Socrates.
"Goldman Sachs’ share price is going down hard INTO 2019. The 159 level will be critical on a closing basis for the year. If that is breached, then we could see very major implications for the firm whereby it may no longer survive." "not in 2019" but GOING INTO 2019 you can't make such a mistake like that and we never closed below 159 for the year 2018. This call was essential made at least on his public blog on Nov 13, 2018 where a bearish reversal had already been elected https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/goldman-sachs-preparing-for-waterfall-event/ "
Goldman Sachs elected a Monthly Bearish Reversal. Now a monthly closing BELOW 215 will signal a Waterfall is unfolding with a drop back to 185 for starters. " The anticipation point is correct but first the market has to PROVE ITS DIRECTION that is the difference. " In Tokyo, a man came to me with a magnetic engine. He wanted me to help him and take it public. He left me a scooter and told me to test it out. You plugged it in once and thereafter it self-generated power and did not need to be plugged in again. I was sceptical at first. I asked him why he was coming to me? He said he had been to all the top auto manufacturers and everyone wanted to buy it. He was offered $50 million and turned it down not because he wanted more, but because they wanted to shelve it so it would not see the light of day. That was another project they ensured was killed in my affair." https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/fake-new-silence-any-new-achievement/"it self-generated power and did not need to be plugged in again" really you cannot conceive this being possible in the future? Who said it was breaking the laws of laws of thermodynamics you have no idea how the technology works? Many things we can do today was thought impossible not too long ago. 100 years from now the technology that will exist you would say today is impossible and will never happen. You have to accept there are certain very disruptive technologies that are being suppressed by special interests and many innovations made by people are simply paid off just be shelved. |
|
|
|
|
Gumbi
Copper Member
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 168
Merit: 0
|
|
July 14, 2019, 02:42:10 PM |
|
..And these guys; https://integratedwealthmanagement.ca/learned-martin-armstrongs-orlando-conference/'..1) Socrates is NOT supposed to be used as a day-trading platform 2) Socrates should be used in tandem with an existing disciplined framework, including proper diversification, disciplined trade execution, moderate trading frequency, and with very disciplined risk management in place 3) Our managers will utilize Socrates to make sure Client portfolios: Are on the right side of every major currency move Are over-weighted in asset classes that have the best risk : reward potential Avoid major losses from high-risk asset classes, and possibly benefit by shorting these asset classes..' i'm not a trader in any sense. But I use Armstrong as a macro road map and i'm in the green because of it. If i'd listened to someone like Jim Rickards who wrote The Death of the Dollar years ago and pushes gold all the time, I'd be in the red for sure. Kiwibird- great spot, thanks. They REALLY like Martin Armstrong. They say they use Socrates amongst other things but that is quite a bold statement for a financial advisor to make. Maybe they are the company that MA refers to when he says he wants to licence Socrates, but in any event a public relationship exists there currently. Bikefront - yes I used to read Nick Nicolaas blog at Mining Interactive as he posts a lot about Socrates, and in fact says: "Outside of the people directly working directly with Martin Armstrong, I am probably the best person in the world interpreting his work." He even sells his notes at the WECs. I am quite happy to take NN at his word (he says he used to get MA faxes in the 1990s), but he said in one of his own public blog snippets of WEC notes that he nearly fell off his chair when MA said in 2017 (I think) that Gold was not going below $1k per ounce when NN had been forecasting this constantly, no doubt based on his interpretation of MA. So I concluded if this long time devotee of MA cannot fathom Socrates, a non-trader like me has no chance. I was interested in the basic investor service on the 2016 version but was out off by constant updates essentially saying it is not ready; it’s like buying a half built car. Steering might work but what if has no brakes…. I take Anonymous Coder’s point that financial firms might stay away from a licensed version of Socrates but those guys at Integrated Wealth Management have made me consider the point once more. If ANY mutual fund firm put out a Socrates fund that in itself would be an endorsement as it would have had to be scrutinised before the point of launch. Would I put money into such a fund? Sure I would but I would not give it any more money than some of my other funds. And I might even wait until it has a three-year track record like all my other funds. I would not give money to any wealth firm using Socrates because there is no public track record like you have with mutual funds for peer comparison and risk/reward assessment. However even if such a fund were launched in the US it is unlikely to make its way to the UK so perhaps it is wishful thinking but I would follow it with interest. Gumbi / Strike Eagle - thanks for your insights. As you both appear to be close to MA. Can you expand on the possibility of a licensed version of Socrates?Thanks again to ALL posters on their experiences, insights and comments. MA is fascinating. Today’s post about the UFOs. Brilliant! He has mentioned this before " We are in the process of licensing Socrates for a public fund being created by a Sovereign Government who is seeking to expand its Sovereign Wealth Fund services who has attended our World Economic Conferences since 1985. " https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/products_services/socrates/warning-about-funds-management-claiming-to-be-using-socrates/@AnonymousCoder You have to be very naive or stupid to think the government has not created secret technology that the public does not know about. This is the most logical explanation for all the sightings of UFO's |
|
|
|
|
AnonymousCoder
Member
Offline
Activity: 580
Merit: 17
|
|
July 14, 2019, 02:45:36 PM
Last edit: July 20, 2021, 06:33:44 PM by AnonymousCoder |
|
" In Tokyo, a man came to me with a magnetic engine. He wanted me to help him and take it public. He left me a scooter and told me to test it out. You plugged it in once and thereafter it self-generated power and did not need to be plugged in again. I was sceptical at first. I asked him why he was coming to me? He said he had been to all the top auto manufacturers and everyone wanted to buy it. He was offered $50 million and turned it down not because he wanted more, but because they wanted to shelve it so it would not see the light of day. That was another project they ensured was killed in my affair." https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/fake-new-silence-any-new-achievement/"it self-generated power and did not need to be plugged in again" really you cannot conceive this being possible in the future? Who said it was breaking the laws of laws of thermodynamics you have no idea how the technology works? Many things we can do today was though impossible not too long ago. 100 years from now the technology that will exist you would say today is impossible and will never happen. You have to accept there are certain very disruptive technologies that are being suppressed by special interests and many innovations made by people are simply paid off just be shelved. You have to be very naive or stupid to think the government has not created secret technology that the public does not know about. This is the most logical explanation for all the sightings of UFO's
Kind of sad that these people who cannot prove anything of what they are trying to sell end up promoting these conspiracy theories. All rational people are stupid? I mean in this forum we are talking about serious subjects like investing losing money using Socrates, predicting future trends hopefully in a timely manner using generally accepted methods such as analysis and then look at this ... How much lower can things get? Disgusting. Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed. Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud. See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog. Every single defrauded person should report their case, see Where and how to complain |
|
|
|
|
Indyz
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 36
Merit: 0
|
|
July 14, 2019, 03:04:10 PM |
|
Yet another newbie joins the fray. Blah blah.... Armstrong rocks... Blah blah  |
|
|
|
|
unwashed
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
|
|
July 14, 2019, 04:00:53 PM |
|
So, something to share, a number of years ago I read an article about an investment fund that constantly beat the market. It is a private fund only offered to employees to the Company. The interesting part is the people who ran the fund had created a system solely on science, numbers and correlations. They only hired "Quants", for the people who do not know what quants are ,they are Phd's of various fields, specifically Mathematicians, Physics and Science. Wall street started using them in the mid 2000's but this fund have been using them for much longer. The company also required the quants to NOT have any financial background. At the time their investing record was very very impressive, they always beat the market with returns and performance in the double digit area. Since 1994-2014 their average return was 71%, wow how do I get in, lol. You can't, you have to work for them,  . what's more interesting is they since opened two funds to the general public but doesn't even come close to the performance of their flag ship fund, Medallion fund and the Company's name Renaissance Technologies. n 1988, the firm established its most profitable portfolio, the Medallion Fund, which used an improved and expanded form of Leonard Baum's mathematical models, improved by algebraist James Ax, to explore correlations from which they could profit. Simons and Ax started a hedge fund and named it Medallion in honor of the math awards that they had won.
enaissance's flagship Medallion fund, which is run mostly for fund employees,[8] "is famed for one of the best records in investing history, returning more than 35 percent annualized over a 20-year span".[5] From 1994 through mid-2014 it averaged a 71.8% annual return. My point is Why would anyone want to sell a system that almost doubles your returns every year? It seems Renaissance Technologies isn't willing to give up their secret trading system to anyone. Which I don't blame them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Technologies |
|
|
|
|
Indyz
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 36
Merit: 0
|
|
July 14, 2019, 04:55:35 PM |
|
Lol.
Can you spell "ponzi"?
|
|
|
|
|
unwashed
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
|
|
July 14, 2019, 05:30:18 PM
Last edit: July 14, 2019, 06:25:15 PM by unwashed |
|
Lol.
Can you spell "ponzi"?
So a fund/company that's been around for 30+ years, have verified returns, subject to journalist reveiw and no investigations is a ponzi but MA stating that he can tell the future is legit? Edit, this fund is also doing it by the numbers, correlation and no emotions by Phd's with no trading experience. At the very least, his claim to be the only one with this type of system is incorrect. |
|
|
|
|
MA_talk
Member
Offline
Activity: 226
Merit: 10
|
|
July 14, 2019, 05:49:12 PM |
|
...
he discovered the 8.615 year cycle. The total number of days within an 8.6-year business cycle is 3141 which is equal to Pi x 1000 the perfect cycle. So you agree with Armstrong that there is a cycle to every market? If so then random price movement simply does not exist
I think most people including you believe that market price movement is completely random therefore cycles simply cannot exist in any given market.
@Gumbi, unless you are as stupid as Armstrong, or I should say as "smart" as Armstrong, or maybe you ARE Armstrong, it is simply amazing that you are making EXACTLY the SAME math mistake. PI is 3.1416, if expresed in 4-digit decimal. HELLO!!! If you express that as in 3-digit decimal, it is 3.142, HELLO!!! So based on Armstrong's own "PI x 1000", it should be 3142 days, HELLO!!! But only Armstrong couldn't do rounding of 3.1416 to 3.142, and used 3141, and now you are the SECOND guy. I have documented his blatant math error in my post here, where ECM date of 10/1/2015 is the same as 10/7/2015. And you posted the CLOSING of your trade, late by 1 day, which made a huge difference. You know, if a scammer does that all the time, with just 1-day difference instead of doing it in real-time, a scammer can easily INJECT a positive bias to his trade return to all of his trades. Real-time is real-time. Computerized tradings on Wallstreet are taking advantages of millisecond differences. Even with millisecond difference, you can obtain an edge. And your ("phantom" or not) trade is taking advantage of 1 whole day. That is NOT acceptable to measure or prove Armstrong's trading models. |
|
|
|
|
|
