Martin Armstrong Discussion

[believeonjesus]

A.......t on steemit, SMIII?

I am not him if that's what you are asking.

OK thanks for clarifying that, for some reason I thought there was some sort of a link with you and that writer.

[AnonymousCoder]

@AnonymousCoder,

Armstrong asks if you could please stop decorating his name into a wikipedia link:

Wikipedia is a professional propaganda organization that allows fakes news and outright illegal propaganda to dominate the internet.
Most schools no longer accept Wikipedia as a valid source for citation in universities.
The only areas where Wikipedia may be accurate are where the topics have nothing to do with a political agenda.
Where there are any controversial political topics, current events, conspiracy theories,
and biographies of people who are anti-government, then the fake news and outright propaganda dominate the sensitive pages.

Thanks Traxo. I feel flattered. Gives me an opportunity to comment on it. In this case, I think that the Wikipedia is closer to the truth than it is not. That is why I am quoting it.

There are certain guidelines in Wikipedia in a sense that when the article is about a person which applies here, then nothing can be written in that article that does not quote another major source like an article in a news magazine.

And that article must not be on a hate site or a site that is blacklisted such as bitcointalk.org.

If you look at the edit history of the Martin Armstrong article, then you find that perfectly valid facts, simply facts of failed forecasts, were rejected because the forecasts were reported on the Armstrong site BUT the FAILURE was not reported by an accepted source while the evidence is available everywhere.

That is very convincing. So what Armstrong is doing, he is effectively attacking the mainstream media through Wikipedia by extension only. No surprise here because he has an axe to grind with the justice system. The fact that he hits Wikipedia very hard in the process will not give him any points because most people like Wikipedia.

Again, this discredits Martin Armstrong. Whatever this guy is doing in that direction, it is bound to backfire. He has tried it in this forum, and we collectively defeated him every time so he is not posting here any more. Which is ok. Let him post his rubbish on his own site, that is ok.

I am in no way simply pro-establishment, and I can in fact agree with some of Martin Armstrong's points which are well-known otherwise. But he mixes things up and uses cherry-picking to hide is own agenda. He is very much like the pot calling the kettle black.


Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for a reason.

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.

[Traxo]

So what Armstrong is doing, he is effectively attacking the mainstream media through Wikipedia by extension only. No surprise here because he has an axe to grind with the justice system. The fact that he hits Wikipedia very hard in the process will not give him any points because most people like Wikipedia.

Again, this discredits Martin Armstrong.

Yeah. Appears to be the case.  
So we should for some reason trust his articles which he rarely even sources. Source is himself only sometimes.
I am not saying we should trust msm either, but why would I trust him? Where are his sources? In fact, he sometimes even sources the very publishers he's trying to discredit.

Most schools no longer accept Wikipedia as a valid source for citation in universities.  

Whatever, what's his source for that claim?  
Is it... the very wikipedia disclaimer?  

Caution is advised when using Wikipedia as a source. In most academic institutions, references to Wikipedia, along with most encyclopedias, are unacceptable for research papers.

So what's the workaround? Just use the same sources as wikipedia does. We are back to square one. Lol.

[AnonymousCoder]

Most schools no longer accept Wikipedia as a valid source for citation in universities.

Armstrong's logic is utter nonsense. First it is obvious that Wikipedia cannot be quoted in research because it is dynamic. How could you possibly quote something in research that is subject to change?

But people do not read Wikipedia because they want to quote it. They want to learn something quickly, get some ideas and links to further information and then, perhaps quote the information Wikipedia links to. So he is trying to discredit Wikipedia with something that Wikipedia is not even trying to be.

He hates Wikipedia simply because he cannot control it. He can control his own site because nobody is allowed to write a comment on it. And he can get the Forecaster Movie made for him where he controls the narrative. The Wikipedia article exposes the Forecaster movie for what it is simply by quoting free press articles.

Then he creates that conspiracy theory that the deep state is after him controlling Wikipedia. This is a joke.

Wikipedia is controlled by rules not by individuals. Nobody in the deep state cares about Martin Armstrong. The idea that someone with an agenda would infiltrate Wikipedia for the purpose of harming that Martin Armstrong moron is ridiculous.

Imagine the risk such an agent would take for a zero benefit. Doing this and being exposed would raise Armstrong's profile so much in the alt-conspiracy world that this would thoroughly defeat that hypothetical purpose.


Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for a reason.

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.

[AnonymousCoder]

Martin Armstrong Book at Amazon unavailable

Martin Armstrong complains about amazon.com. Isn't this funny? Isn't it also funny that seven positive reviews are out in the first three hours - essentially before the book is even available? Look at all the comments. Armstrong's troll army at work? He should sell his book on his own site. He cannot use any third party because he needs to control the reviews as he does with his own fake reader Q/A posts.



Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for a reason.

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.

[Traxo]

Isn't it also funny that seven positive reviews are out in the first three hours?

He announced the book earlier

Dec 10, 2019:  
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/products_services/products/manipulating-the-world-economy-4/  
Dec 11, 2019:  
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/products_services/products/manipulating-the-world-economy-at-amazon/

Check review dates, they go back to Dec 10 and 11, dates of those blogs



Very helpful 

[AnonymousCoder]

Isn't it also funny that seven positive reviews are out in the first three hours?

He announced the book earlier

Dec 10, 2019:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/products_services/products/manipulating-the-world-economy-4/
Dec 11, 2019:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/products_services/products/manipulating-the-world-economy-at-amazon/

Check review dates, they go back to Dec 10 and 11, dates of those blogs



Very helpful

You are right. But even more so, how can we have these reviews out on the same day he announced it? It think one should report abuse at amazon.com. Total scam.

Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for a reason.

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.

[Traxo]

You are right. But even more so, how can we have these reviews out on the same day he announced it? Total scam.

No idea why Amazon allows it.  

Perhaps because it's possible that some of the people read it already:  

Those who attended the 2019 WEC received a signed first edition copy of the book.

And the lulz:  

[AnonymousCoder]

You are right. But even more so, how can we have these reviews out on the same day he announced it? Total scam.

No idea why Amazon allows it.

Perhaps because it's possible that some of the people read it already: ?

Those who attended the 2019 WEC received a signed first edition copy of the book.

And the lulz:

Perhaps more reader comments at amazon than 2019 conference attendees

If we can trust the BSR of 1,044 shown at amazon and the BSR to Sales Calculator then approximately 142 copies were sold per day.



Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for a reason.

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.

[dibley8899]

Hello,


His website is still getting a lot of hits but it is on the slide more so ask socrates as it seems people are giving up with the nonsense.

Interesting that the best book ever written which has sold out..... uses a 20$ shutterstock photo as the cover.


lol 

[trulycoined]

Hello,

His website is still getting a lot of hits but it is on the slide more so ask socrates as it seems people are giving up with the nonsense.

Interesting that the best book ever written which has sold out..... uses a 20$ shutterstock photo as the cover.

lol  

If you check SimilarWeb, both armstrongeconomics.com and ask-socrates.com have been declining past 6 months:

https://www.similarweb.com/website/armstrongeconomics.com

https://www.similarweb.com/website/ask-socrates.com

Keep in mind any tool like the above or Alexa is often inaccurate, but what it does do is indicate the trend (like "Socrates"?!). So it is safe to assume MA has been losing site traffic through 2019. Perhaps that is why he suddenly pulled the "repo crisis" out of nowhere, where he knows another doomsday prophecy will have the tin foil-hat lemmings running back to him?


Also really interesting is Google Trends:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F02prybq,%2Fg%2F11gfk5l23l

I've plotted this against bitcointalk.org for comparison, where around April this year, the forum began heating up with posts and visits.

You can see some of the sub-region areas that are most popular for MA are also the most popular for bitcointalk. Perhaps there is some correlation there and people are beginning to find out MA is playing a big game of fact, fact, BS? It does after all afford him a very nice income while all his wealth was confiscated after jail time.

If his readership are beginning to work him out and realise how often his AI predictions are wrong, that might explain the declining site traffic. I have noticed the quality of blog posts has declined in recent months, and it is generally just a big repeat of the same dross he has been posting past five years. There just isn't much of value any more and if you want to understand what might happen in the markets, there are better, more informed and credible people to listen to in the short amount of time we all have to consume content each day.


Trends also confirms somewhat a decline in volume.

Also interesting is related searches for "martin armstrong":
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=martin%20armstrong

Zerohedge is in there, which I find a weird propaganda site that has similar content to MA's blog: doom and gloom, where the enlightened "insiders" of the group (ZH members) await some future financial Armageddon. They may well be correct, but then even a broken clock is right twice a day.

What is curious is when I attended the 2018 WEC, I got talking to many people there, and someone was waxing lyrical about ZeroHedge - as if it in some way was their guiding light in a news media full of lies... Where ZH is equally as bad and their readership likely border on a demographic that are conspiracy theory nuts.

Hence, much of MA's audience probably are your typical ZH demographic - where Google more or less confirms it - and it is those types of people he targets as he knows they LOVE a good financial doomsday prophecy and are wealthy enough to afford his report/WEC fees.

I've said it before: MA does not excel in trading nor even economics. He excels in understanding the human psyche and salesmanship. If I use an analogy, he identifies the hungry lions, then sells them a big, juicy steak that is actually tofu.

Works. Every. Time.

And he once went to jail for it.

[AnonymousCoder]

Thanks trulycoined.

Martin Armstrong has been running a sophisticated scam for many years. So sophisticated that part of your message is worth repeating and re-inforcing.

...
and people are beginning to find out MA is playing a big game of fact, fact, BS?
...

Yes. That is the pattern. Give away the facts and sell BS. He is giving away for free (re-publishing) much material that is available for free elsewhere as well.

He even declares some of his merchandise as public service "This was not a book intended to make some huge profit. It was done as a public service.". Then he cross-sells his worthless reports, conferences and Socrates for "huge Profit" as it can be implied by his own message above.

A fairly obvious confidence trick.

It still seems to be successful. We need more volunteers who write warning comments on Zerohedge, youtube and other sites that he uses to promote his services.


Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for a reason.

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.

[s29]

So Marty's prediction with the decline in bonds and decline in government since the ECM 2015 turning point didn't pan out, now he suddenly focusses on a presumed declining interest in sports (which traders/investors give a rat's ass about that anyways) since the ECM turning point:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/understanding-cycles/sports-peaked-with-2015-75-and-nfl-has-15000-unsold-seats/

Sports Peaked with 2015.75 and NFL Has 15,000 Unsold seats
Blog/Understanding Cycles
Posted Dec 23, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Marty; Your forecast that sports peaked with the ECM 2015.75 and would decline was really amazing. Socrates is monitoring everything and your explanation that sports would peak and decline was part of the cycle has proved that there are so many trends all interconnected.

Fantastic forecast nobody else even thought about.

GH

REPLY: Yes, it may seem amazing, but humans react the same way over the centuries given the same or similar trends in the economy. The NFL has thousands of empty seats that show everything is subject to cyclical behavior.

Declining interest in sports probably has more to do with people being more and more addicted to social media and thus have way less time to spend on watching sports. Not really an amazing prediction...

[Traxo]

Not really an amazing prediction...

Yeah but... exact date and sh*t... ya know.

Anyway, gotta wonder why he didn't link to a blog in which he predicted it BEFORE it happened. He linked to blogs posted in 2016+.
Orrr. no need to wonder why, but instead he never actually predicted it. Just a thought.

Fantastic forecast nobody else even thought about.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/tag/sports/

"Sports" tag dates back to 2016, not earlier. So it seems he invented the forecast after the "decline" and then just tied it to 2015.75 because it fits by coincidence.

[AnonymousCoder]

Here is the proof that Martin Armstrong did not actually predict that sports decline. When he first mentioned it, the decline was already in motion:

Football in Decline

It is meaningless chatter. As has been said so many times before, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

If you had taken his prediction "sports have begun a bear market" and "It looks like sports are a great short." seriously and sold Nike Inc. NKE then - that would have been a bad trade. The price is near the all time high now.

Other Martin Armstrong sports "predictions" are summarized here:

Armstrong's Sports Predictions


Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for a reason.

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.

[trulycoined]

Here is the proof that Martin Armstrong did not actually predict that sports decline. When he first mentioned it, the decline was already in motion...

Also a good example of this, a blog post from 2013, where MA explained Apple buying back their stock was the beginning of the end:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/stock-buy-backs-bad-idea/

"Shareholders are DEAD wrong on this one [Apple]. If they were good traders, they should have sold their shares at the top. It was a clear bubble."


Then this happened, where MA has technically admitted he is a bad trader, and the bad traders he was criticising were in fact good traders:




Thank you oh great Socrates!

This also adds further credence to the trend anyone that has tried to use Socrates has observed: whatever it predicts, go the opposite way, and you will usually make money. Not least as Socrates is quite likely MA himself, making things up as he goes along. As can be seen above, had you done the opposite of what MA was saying (or that his *machine had "predicted"), you would have made money.

*It is quite likely the supercomputer doesn't exist, which has been debunked countless times on these boards. Having sat in a WEC hearing MA speak on stage about Socrates and code, even as someone who does not know how to code, it sounded like BS.

You would have missed out on an easy 3x your investment by 2019 - and almost double in little over a year from when that blog post was published. 2013 was the last best buying opportunity post the QE boom seen of March 2009, which was the buying opportunity of the decade... That MA also never wrote about, nor did Socrates predict.

[Gumbi]

@trulycoined

The article has nothing to do with socrates... and you cannot say socrates never predicted the move because you never had access to it.

 I have been tracking Apple and for 2019 Socrates elected two monthly bullish reversal  in January...
https://imgur.com/a/ZmBJras

[trulycoined]

@trulycoined

The article has nothing to do with socrates... and you cannot say socrates never predicted the move because you never had access to it.

 I have been tracking Apple and for 2019 Socrates elected two monthly bullish reversal  in January...
https://imgur.com/a/ZmBJras

Socrates is based (coded) on MA's own economic theories - it did not create nor build itself. Where MA explains:

When companies buy back shares to placate investors, historically it is the beginning of the end... Buying back stock to delist is one thing. To do so to try to support share prices – VERY BAD!!!!... Shareholders are DEAD wrong on this one. If they were good traders, they should have sold their shares at the top. It was a clear bubble.

Then that may well be MA's opinion and not Socrates forecast. However, that raises one of the fundamental criticisms of MA: what is his opinion and what is Socrates forecasts? His writing, reports and WECs blend both together, making it very difficult to - in MA's own words - connect the dots.

To my wider point, where Socrates is the creation of MA applying his theories using programming languages as the input and output then, where like above he was wrong, so too must there be a high probability Socrates is wrong as well. This is especially true where such vast data needs to be crunched, and immense computing power (both hardware and energy) required to predict future events "to the day".

I will agree with you that if Socrates made no prediction in that 2013 article, then it is not wrong.

But MA was. And if his theories are wrong, then so too must Socrates.

It would be nice if he admitted as much. It would actually earn him greater respect, credence, and authority.

[trulycoined]

Another curious dissection of MAs "forecasts". Recent posts on these boards have spoken of him getting the UK General Election (GE) wrong, while MA then later claimed (after the event, naturally) that he called it correct.

This MA blog post appears 24 December 2019:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/impeachment-coup-to-overthrown-trump/



Where MA explains:
The British elections came out in line with the computer projections with the Labour (socialists) coming in at the lowest level back to the 1930s.


Side note: MA's geography is slightly off here. It was the UK election, not the British election. Britain = England, Scotland, Wales. UK = all of those, plus Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland was part of the GE, as is the case in all GE's. I wonder if Socrates could have corrected him on this?!


Look at the chart, and now compare to this chart here, from a blog post about the same thing posted 15 Nov 2019, around a month before the GE took place:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/britain/the-coming-british-elections/



The above chart was way off, where the Conservatives (blue line) had one of their best results in the history of the party and Labour (orange line) one of their worst. Liberals did about the same, and the SNP (Scottish party, which has its own Scottish parliament) predictably did well, but nothing that was not expected. "Other" parties, including Farage's, that MA said would do very well, did as expected: barely even a scratch on the larger parties.

And so here you have it.

MA has now changed the chart of his most recent post on 24 December, to make it look like Socrates called the UK (not British!) GE correctly. It did not. And why has the chart from his 24 December post suddenly appeared AFTER the event, but not in any blog post BEFORE the event? I will let you be the judge of that.

Proof, if anyone needed it, of the games MA has been playing ever since he started his "forecasting". It also suggests he is aware this board exists, and needed to "rectify" the accusations of calling the UK GE wrong, with a blog post that lets him bask in the glory of calling it "correct"... After the event has happened, which is a recurring theme.

Even more incredible to the cosmic levels of BS that MA spews, is how the reader cannot be certain what data is being illustrated! In one chart, it is the percentage of the popular vote, in the other, the number of seats held. That IS deceptive to claim glory for a forecast, while using two completely different data sets before and after the event. MA loves to call out climate scientists for playing similar games with AGW!

Also notice how even the charts themselves are designed to be purposefully deceptive? They are almost always in 3D, and the angle of view is always different. This too is illustrated above. How can you possibly compare one chart to another accurately? Answer: you can't. And that suits MA perfectly fine...

I will repeat once again: MA is a master of human psychology and sales, not trading and economics. He went to jail playing this game with institutional investors. He will avoid jail playing the same game with retail investors, where no one has the resources nor the money to do anything about it - much less even notice they are being played for fools.

Caveat emptor.

[AnonymousCoder]

...
Then that may well be MA's opinion and not Socrates forecast. However, that raises one of the fundamental criticisms of MA: what is his opinion and what is Socrates forecasts? His writing, reports and WECs blend both together, making it very difficult to - in MA's own words - connect the dots.
...

Well, for maximum ambiguity, Martin Armstrong wants it both ways and he has covered his behind. He has stated numerous times that one should not believe him if he declares what he says as an opinion - only his computer is always right:

Right or Wrong - The Dark Side of Human Nature

Needless to say, he gives himself credit for whatever he said or mostly never said and as you pointed out, he changes the facts in hindsight to fit his own narrative.

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.