Economic Devastation

[iamback]

Your post for debunking Kurzweil doesn't really address what I was talking about.  I made the statement that real AI isn't really possible because the debug and error checking system of the AI would be entirely human designed, and this component of the system would define just about everything that the AI was doing at any given time.

Yes it does. Read it again more carefully. I already encompassed the generative essence of that.

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy

but it can't vary its imperfections nondeterministically

Geniuses don't write all the special cases. We write a generative essence statement which captures all the special cases in the model.

... or it's going to mirror biological evolution.

You are repeating what I wrote in my blog before you did.

Since the portion of the human genome pertaining to the brain has an entropy in the millions or billions, each human brain is potentially at least one-in-a-million or one-in-a-billion unique. Notwithstanding that uniqueness, if human evolution was entirely encoded in a finite genome, then it would be mathematically possible for a plurality of humans to have identical brains at some point in time as the brain forms before differentiation from non-identical learning environments. However, the brain is learning and exposed to the environment as it is forming in the womb, thus there is never a point in time where the brain was entirely structured from only the information in the DNA.

Thus evolution is not just an encoding from the environment to the genome, rather a continuous interaction between the ongoing environment and the genome. Thus for computers to obtain the same entropy of the collective human brainpower, they would need to be human reproducing, contributing to genome and interacting with the environment in the ways humans do. Even if computers could do this, the technological singularity would not occur, because the computers would be equivalent to adding more humans to the population.

[1715094242]

1715094242

[1715094242]

1715094242

[1715094242]

1715094242

[r0ach]

Your post for debunking Kurzweil doesn't really address what I was talking about.  I made the statement that real AI isn't really possible because the debug and error checking system of the AI would be entirely human designed, and this component of the system would define just about everything that the AI was doing at any given time.

Yes it does. Read it again more carefully. I already encompassed the generative essence of that.

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy

but it can't vary its imperfections nondeterministically

Geniuses don't write all the special cases. We write a generative essence statement which captures all the special cases in the model.

... or it's going to mirror biological evolution.

You are repeating what I wrote in my blog before you did.

Since the portion of the human genome pertaining to the brain has an entropy in the millions or billions, each human brain is potentially at least one-in-a-million or one-in-a-billion unique. Notwithstanding that uniqueness, if human evolution was entirely encoded in a finite genome, then it would be mathematically possible for a plurality of humans to have identical brains at some point in time as the brain forms before differentiation from non-identical learning environments. However, the brain is learning and exposed to the environment as it is forming in the womb, thus there is never a point in time where the brain was entirely structured from only the information in the DNA.

Thus evolution is not just an encoding from the environment to the genome, rather a continuous interaction between the ongoing environment and the genome. Thus for computers to obtain the same entropy of the collective human brainpower, they would need to be human reproducing, contributing to genome and interacting with the environment in the ways humans do. Even if computers could do this, the technological singularity would not occur, because the computers would be equivalent to adding more humans to the population.

Haven't read it before.  The whole argument basically comes down to, is it possible for machines reproducing asexually to compete with biological genetic diversity.  It's a hard call to make with the low overhead of machines creating new machines if they were also competing with each other for resources.  If the programs just existed in a vacuum and didn't have to compete with each other or biological entities for resources, then of course they're not going to develop into anything.

Instead of trying to create AI from scratch, with human based error checking and debug rules encompassing all of it's functionality, if all you did was try to digitize a rat brain, the low overhead of machine reproduction could accelerate natural selection so fast that it turns from rat to god overnight, possibly while just sitting inside of a simulator fighting other rats.  So then the question is, what is the lowest level organism needed to be digitized to accomplish such a task.

In this model, you're not actually trying to create high level organisms, you're just trying to lower the overhead of natural selection on more primitive organisms.  If the machines only used asexual type of reproduction, you could end up with only great white shark, apex predator type creatures because they're not really required to interact with other entities in a non-hostile manner.  You might have to force non-asexual reproduction to achieve higher levels of advancement in the realm of communication, etc.

[iamback]

Haven't read it before.

I gave you the link to my essay the first time I replied to you. Readers who ignore my links get ignored by me. You are now on ignore.

[chriscoin]

AnonyMint why do you think teaching and debating in a bitcoinforum has more value than concentrating on coding? (link if answered already)

[r0ach]

Haven't read it before.

I gave you the link to my essay the first time I replied to you. Readers who ignore my links get ignored by me. You are now on ignore.

lol?  He basically said I plagiarized something he wrote, then when I said I never read it before, so there's no way I'm repeating something he typed, he says he's "ignoring me".  I knew this guy was out there, but strange behavior like this while also referring to himself as a genius in posts is a little too much.  How do you even quantify the word "genius".  Everyone on the planet is basically a compartmentalized, retard savant in their own little areas of expertise.

Some people do nothing but play chess at a high level, but can't do math, programming, art, or anything else good and are referred to as "genius".  Where exactly do you draw the line here extending that term?  Are people who are masters at flipping burgers also geniuses because it provides higher real world value than chess, a game where the outcome doesn't really have any bearing on the real world.

[CoinCube]

...
I never read it before, so there's no way I'm repeating something he typed...
Some people do nothing but play chess at a high level, but can't do math, programming, art, or anything else good and are referred to as "genius".  Where exactly do you draw the line here extending that term?  
...

All ideas a built on a foundation of existing knowledge. Once the time is ripe for the emergence of an idea it is very common for similar insights to be developed independently.

If it becomes important enough (few ideas are) historians can and will sort the matter out. I see little point in arguing who was first. Even when money is at stake as with patents this can be difficult to determine. Recently our legal system has abandoned its duty to even try.

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/02/supreme-constitutionality-patent.html

The Supreme Court has denied MadStad Engineering’s petition for writ of certiorari in its case arguing that the first-to-file patent system is unconstitutional because the new law awards rights for the filing of a patent application and no longer requires invention.
 
Rather than reaching the merits, the district court found that MadStad lacked standing to file the lawsuit because the plaintiff could not prove any particular injury due to the law’s enactment.

Patent/Copyright law is a example of something that started out with a good intent but is morphing into something very detrimental. These laws are increasingly being used as tools for theft (via first to file) and suppression (via lawsuits) of innovation and competition.

[iamback]

The point was not about arguing who was first. I never accused him of reading what I wrote and stealing it ('repeating' is not a synonym for 'stealing'). I am amazed at the low level of reading comprehension that most people have.

The point was he didn't read my link, thus he didn't read my essay and wasted my time by saying I didn't write what I wrote.

People who waste my time by refusing to read what is posted, go on ignore (not the site's ignore feature, just me ignoring them even I can see their posts). He even failed to read the thread, because his first post was accusing me of being in support of Kurzweil's Singularity nonsense. Then I provided him a link to my essay and told him he was mistaken. He didn't even bother to read that, before he went off on another tirade of incorrect accusations.

I am probably first, since I was writing those ideas back in Feb. 2011 and I was contemplating them earlier than that.

Also my expose is much more foundational and complete from a generative essence goal.

He can get off my lawn now.

[d0om]

What a contemptible collection of rubbish.

You only need to read the last passage to know its worth:

Disclaimer: The above expressed opinions and citations are my own and not necessarily endorsed by this site. My opinions and citations are shared as alternative perspective for your entertainment only. I cannot prevent you from deeming that my essay is educational. I am not a professional advisor, thus I claim safe harbor and I am not responsible for any outcomes, mental state, decisions or actions you experience or make after reading this essay or cited sources.

[CoinCube]

What a contemptible collection of rubbish.

You only need to read the last passage to know its worth:

Disclaimer: (standard financial disclaimer).

Ummm... you must not spend a lot of time reading.

It is standard practice for anyone who writes on finance and markets to add a disclaimer. No one wants to be sued.
 
Here are a few examples to get you up to speed.

http://www.russell.com/KR/_disclaimers/Advice-Warning/
http://www.403bwise.com/disclaimer/index.html
http://www.axiomcap.co.uk/content/index.php?page=disclaimer

If you want to make any sort of case that the works upthread are a "contemptible collection of rubbish" you really should put more effort into it.  

[picolo]

What a contemptible collection of rubbish.

You only need to read the last passage to know its worth:

Disclaimer: (standard financial disclaimer).

Ummm... you must not spend a lot of time reading.

It is standard practice for anyone who writes on finance and markets to add a disclaimer. No one wants to be sued.
 
Here are a few examples to get you up to speed.

http://www.russell.com/KR/_disclaimers/Advice-Warning/
http://www.403bwise.com/disclaimer/index.html
http://www.axiomcap.co.uk/content/index.php?page=disclaimer

If you want to make any sort of case that the works upthread are a "contemptible collection of rubbish" you really should put more effort into it.  

The USA used to be the land of the free, the free market, small governement and low taxes create huge wealth but big governement, higher taxes, huge debts and less free market is inducing lower standard of living.

[bigtimespaghetti]

Some other endorsement of M.A. if anyone is interested:

Here

[iamback]

Some other endorsement of M.A. if anyone is interested:

Here

Those guys are quoting him out-of-context as CoinCube tried to do about the weather. Armstrong develops complex ideas over a series of blog posts. You can't cherry pick one blog post and call that a prediction. The predictions issued by the computer are complex and including many "what if" scenarios. He has been correct on gold. For example, he never claimed it would "go to $907 in 2 weeks" nor specifically in Q1 2014.

[iamback]

Youth dating in the West is frivolous and lack of serious, sustained focus (no hard work):

http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/20/love-im-single-therefore-i-tinder/
http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/12/hate-it-or-love-it-tinders-right-swipe-limit-is-working

Even the 20-something Western females follow the False Life Plan[1] which is what feminism and socialism destroyed[2]:

http://nypost.com/2015/03/11/scorned-tinder-co-founder-finally-gets-revenge-against-the-tech-bros/

Westerners are fulfilled with 500 likes (greater than their Dunbar limit), but then 30-something childless and ready to the fall into the 40-something Bermuda triangle.

The Alex stats for the serious matching site OkCupid for Westerners has half the page views and time per visitor compared to the females in AsianDating that seek a foreign husband. Note the Western site is much more economically relevant with an estimated 250 million monthly visitors (140 million page views per day) versus 4 million (4 million page views per day) for AsianDating. But that will invert as the West collapses economically in Armstrong's 2015.75 Sovereign Debt BIG BANG. For comparison, bitcointalk.org has an estimated 20 million monthly visitors (but only 1 million page views per day) and has been steeply downtrending with the decline of the BTC price. Armstrongeconomics.com has about 3 million monthly visitors (but only 200,000 page views per day).

If you have young daughters, educate them in Singapore, not the USA. You will not be able to stop these cultural influences from impacting your kids. Kids are products of the mainstream culture in which they grow up.

Bottom line is rich men get more sex. Economics wins.

[1]	http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-false-life-plan/ http://blog.jim.com/economics/the-future-belongs-to-those-that-show-up/ http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6627#comment-1402370 (whodat? is me, name taken from my New Orleans lineage)

[2]	http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6627#comment-1403223 http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/10/01/what-socialism-destroyed-govt-shutdown/ https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aesr.ibiblio.org+feminism

[r0ach]

He even failed to read the thread, because his first post was accusing me of being in support of Kurzweil's Singularity nonsense.

Are you going for a world record example of being a hypocrite?  It says right in my post:

"Can't believe this post is still going.  I can't remember, was the Anonymint age of knowledge thing supposed to inevitably lead to the creation of AI or not?"

You said you "ignored" me because I didn't read your post, then you made a claim that my post said the opposite of what it did two seconds later.

[CoinCube]

Some other endorsement of M.A. if anyone is interested:

Here

An interesting back and forth thanks for sharing.
Below are two posts that highlight the debate on that thread.

Anti Armstrong

If you read his blog, Martin Armstrong keeps pushing stuff back. Now a lot of his posts are talking about 2017 when SHTF. Keep pushing dates back and you will eventually get it correct. But in terms of overall big trades, I haven't been impressed with any of his forecasts recently. For example, he didn't call the huge decline in energy markets over the past 6 months. In fact, back in December once prices had been routed, he was posting they would go much lower. So obviously he missed the recent rebound in energy prices completely.

Gold was supposed to drop below 1K in 2014 according to him. Big miss. DOW was supposed to trade between 23K-40K according to him. Big miss. Then recently he claimed the DOW was supposed to trend down into May, and seems to have already changed that call. Lots of changes and misses for someone who always claims to be correct. He is painted into a corner with his 2015.75 prediction. Will be interested to see if he pushes that back too.

Things will implode given the circumstances in the world. But the question is when. You will go broke being on the wrong side of a long-term correct trade for too long. Haven't seen many forecasts by Armstrong that will make you a lot of money. Lots of misses and a few hits here and there. Not trying to bash, but just trying to be realistic.

Pro Armstrong

I've been following Armstrong for a short while and I'm very impressed with his theories and systems. First he is into neo-classical economics and he's a monetarist, that's great to start. More Friedman and less Keynes is what the world needs today. Then he bases his ideas in a lot of math and history.

As things develop signals change and that's why sometimes he changes his forecasts on what might happen. Like weather, society can only be forecasted not exactly predicted, especially in short terms views. That's the main confusion, people think he predicts stuff and he doesn't. He forecasts.

Also with all due respect Tekmnd I think you are missing the time frames completely when you attempt to decode Martin's system signals. And one more thing, he says the Dow can rally over 24000 AFTER 2015.75, not by that date but after. I saw his conference about the euro from 1999 just a month ago and I was speechless at how right he was back then about the whole thing. The guy does have a unique understanding of capital flows, money and the markets and I really think the world would benefit big time from just listening to him.

Armstrong has certainly caught my interest enough that I am going to go directly to the source material and form my own opinion. It actually took me a while to find all his prison writings. The older ones do not appear to be available on his website.

If anyone else is interested a complete (I think) collection of them can be found here.
https://www.scribd.com/kzuur58

[iamback]

He even failed to read the thread, because his first post was accusing me of being in support of Kurzweil's Singularity nonsense.

Are you going for a world record example of being a hypocrite?  It says right in my post:

"Can't believe this post is still going.  I can't remember, was the Anonymint age of knowledge thing supposed to inevitably lead to the creation of AI or not?"

Hey idiot, you just quoted yourself accusing me of being in support of Kurzweil's Singularity nonsense.  

The accusation was contained in an intentionally rhetorical question. It was effectively saying, my recollection is that iamback (aka AnonyMint) was supporting Kurzweil's Singularity (AI taking over humans).

P.S. if he had read the thread, then just  a few weeks ago upthread I was reiterating[1] my position that Kurzweil is nonsense.

[1]	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg10417945#msg10417945 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg10423679#msg10423679

[iamback]

Some other endorsement of M.A. if anyone is interested:

Here

An interesting back and forth thanks for sharing.

No it is not interesting. It is uninformed idiots making erroneous noise akin to listening to a child bang pots and pans to together.

Anti Armstrong

If you read his blog, Martin Armstrong keeps pushing stuff back. Now a lot of his posts are talking about 2017 when SHTF. Keep pushing dates back and you will eventually get it correct. But in terms of overall big trades, I haven't been impressed with any of his forecasts recently. For example, he didn't call the huge decline in energy markets over the past 6 months. In fact, back in December once prices had been routed, he was posting they would go much lower. So obviously he missed the recent rebound in energy prices completely.

Gold was supposed to drop below 1K in 2014 according to him. Big miss. DOW was supposed to trade between 23K-40K according to him. Big miss. Then recently he claimed the DOW was supposed to trend down into May, and seems to have already changed that call. Lots of changes and misses for someone who always claims to be correct. He is painted into a corner with his 2015.75 prediction. Will be interested to see if he pushes that back too. ...

All lies.

I can see where someone who reads a few of Armstrong's blog posts out-of-context would have made the assumptions he is making. I too early on thought Armstrong was saying certain predictions. I learned later that I had to have a holistic view of all his blog posts in order to understand the complex nature of his predictions.

Armstrong's position all along (since before 2011!) was that gold will decline to $1000 or below ($680 is the lowest) and the earliest possible target was Q1 2014, but he had made it clear in other blog posts (well before that time frame) that the low was not due before 2015.75 at the latest.

Armstrong did in fact call the huge decline in the energy markets. In fact he even called months before (in public blog post) for the closing price on Dec. 31, 2014 to be below $57 (which was the exact closin price for the year! Fucking amazing!). That idiot did not buy his paid report on that. He also didn't buy his paid report on gold. Armstrong reserves the details on his predictions for paid subscribers. If you are not paying, then just shut the fuck up, because you don't have access to the specificity. I can actually figure out the specificity without paying, because I have read everything and so now I am inside of Armstrong's mind (and thus inside his computer). Remember I am a programmer. I can hold a 100 variable state machine in my head. I can deduce things from a correlation. Mere mortals will need to pay, to have it explicitly spelled out for them.

His DJIA prediction was always predicated on whether the DJIA would invert and align with private assets. If yes, then the high would come in 2017 than by 2015.75. Armstrong had always said that 2017 was more likely.

He didn't push any thing back. The idiot readers are pulling information out-of-context.

[CoinCube]

I wanted to share the leading article on zerohedge. It is a piece of pure unfocused rage.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-13/one-americans-rage-spills-over-shut-your-mouth-start-fighting-these-political-parasi

One American's Rage Spills Over: Shut Your Mouth & Start Fighting These Political Parasites

Submitted by Thad Beversdorf via First Rebuttal blog,

I was shocked today by the absolute gaul of the Fed releasing a statement about Net Worth in America reaching record levels
...
The ugly reality is that the bottom 80% of Americans experienced none of that gain.  That’s right a big ole goose egg.  And so when the Fed via its ass pamper boy, Steve Liesman, start banging on about the fact that some sliver of society is being handed extraordinary wealth while the working class has lost 40% of their net worth since 2007
...
It is embarrassing that our policymakers are either that inconsiderate or that stupid to celebrate such a brutal dislocation between the haves and have nots.
...
And for Americans, why, please god tell me why is it that Americans are so willing to be shit on for so long without so much as a hint of standing up to these monsters that steal our wealth and pass it around their political class.
...
I used to think of Americans as an incredibly admirable people.  The type of people that are confident, strong, intelligent and command respect.  I really truly did.  But having lived here now since 2001, what I see is a people that have rolled over on our backs.  
...
And for those of you that think I’m an ass for being so harsh on us, well stuff it.  Get up off your stool you lazy drunk, shut your damn mouth and start fighting these political parasites like a damn man, like a damn American.  I’m not the one stealing your retirement, stealing your income, stealing your wealth and stealing your freedom all while making myself wealthy and exonerated from all the laws that would put your ass in prison.]

Normally the comments on ZeroHedge are pretty good. However, the posters there seem to blindly support rage pieces like this one without understanding that the rage will only make things worse.

Rage without insight is more then useless. Such anger is easily manipulated and will be directed into an attack on the productive elite and small businesses.  



With each raging assault on the hated rich 1% red cape the bull is confused to find that its wounds have deepened. It responds by attacking the cape with more vigor.

The proper response to this spectacle is not rage but pity. The bull has been brought up and trained its entire life to ignore the torero and has no chance. The only logical choice is to opt out. Don't be the bull and make sure you are not the easily targeted red cape.

[iamback]

...

Normally the comments on ZeroHedge are pretty good. However, the posters there seem to blindly support rage pieces like this one without understanding that the rage will only make things worse.

Rage without insight is more then useless. Such anger is easily manipulated and will be directed into an attack on the productive elite and small businesses.  

...

With each raging assault on the hated rich 1% red cape the bull is confused to find that its wounds have deepened. It responds by attacking the cape with more vigor.

The proper response to this spectacle is not rage but pity. The bull has been brought up and trained its entire life to ignore the torero and has no chance. The only logical choice is to opt out. Don't be the bull and make sure you are not the easily targeted red cape.

CoinCube is started to get the deeper points I bolded below. Note from the poll results and comments in the one world reserve currency thread, that most people are really confused. It will take them a couple of years of reading my teachings before they will realize I AM CORRECT.

A singe currency is as feasible as world peace.
China, Russia, the UK, the US, North Korea or Japan will never accept a currency out of their direct control.

Readers don't read, or lack reading comprehension.

Why don't you try again to read the thread. The national currencies will float against the reserve currency.

The coming global crisis will sink further and further into the abyss until the nations agree to a monetary reset and the only way they will ever agree is if that new monetary reserve unit is not controlled by the USA as it is now.

...

Also Armstrong is contradicting himself on claiming above that the impetus for a move to a one-world reserve currency will be only for economic reasons and "not political".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxOUyPKA_vg

...we are going to go to some sort of new international reserve currency because there have been a lot of political problems with it [the dollar, i.e. one nation's debts being financed on the back of the world using that nation's currency as a reserve]...

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/10/the-one-world-currency-not-arriving-voluntarily/

I “believe” we will be forced into that one-world currency because of the collapse of the Euro and the contagion that will impact Japan. It will become the “solution” to hide the default on socialism. We are already in a declining trend since 2007 for all economies outside the USA. The USA is the only thing holding this thing up. When the global economy turns down, watch the finger-pointing.

The Sovereign Debt Crisis will cause the new currency to emerge for this is how they default. I would like to think that our proposal could be usurped and we end the borrowing, which nobody intends to repay anyway. But let’s be realistic. The collapse will be forced upon the world because of the failure of Marxism. That is the key. The very fundamental idea that government is capable of managing the economy.

The elite have planned this out a long time ago. They BIS Basel rounds have been preplanned for a long time and they slowly are increasing the Tier 1 capital requirements on banks. This will force mark-to-market and everything will collapse.

From that political problem, the world will have no choice but to accept a monetary reset, and the only way to get all the nations to agree to a reset will be for the power of the reserve currency to not be held by any one nation.

So that power will be transferred to an international entity. The elite will pretend it is a fair entity that has representation from all the nations, but as always, they will control this institution.

Armstrong wrote the following posts to try to refute what I had written as quoted below.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/11/rothschilds-fact-or-disinformation-to-protect-the-guilty/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/10/the-one-world-currency-not-arriving-voluntarily/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/10/federal-reserve-confusion/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/10/negative-interest-rates-brain-dead-thinking-that-will-implode-the-world/

...This will cause an acceleration of capital flow into the USA, driving the USA stocks to a phase transition bubble near 40,000 by 2017. The Fed will react by raising interest rates, seeing this as an opportunity to unwind their balance sheet and to pretend to be protecting the 99% against the 1% who profit on stocks. (Note Armstrong doesn't seem to understand the Fed will do this because TPTB want the masses to beg for their own demise, its all part of the master plan towards a one-world reserve currency and global Technocracy. Armstrong doesn't understand that at Bilderberg meetings a smaller group of less than a dozen meet to discuss the real plan for the world, he isn't inside the top most circle)

This rise in interest rates will cause the rest of the world (which is short the dollar due to borrowing all the QE which ended up invested outside the USA) to collapse, thus killing the USA exports from both reduced international demand and a stronger dollar.

USA should thus follow into terminal decline in 2017.

Dominoes falling...

...

[OROBTC]

...

CoinCube

Thank you for your insightful comments on the ZH article.  Rage is indeed easily manipulated, and the obvious targets of rage in America would be the small businesses and the 1% who are not high enough up on the foodchain to evade the rage...  Small business is particularly at risk (ah, Ferguson).

One thing I am learning as I get older.  Perhaps the CORE destructive emotion is resentment.  Resentment is a killer, it harms both the resent-er and the resent-ee.  Being able to move on from resentment is a great step to growth for any of us.

"Don't hurry.
Don't worry.
Don't resent.
Don't condemn."

Zero Hedge also had an interesting article earlier today (13 March) about government debts among the USA, China, Europe and Japan.  The author concludes that the USA (! for ZH) is "the cleanest dirty shirt in the closet".  China, Europe and Japan stink more...

Re Zero Hedge, I was an active member there for about five years.  I dropped out a few months ago because of high number illogical and troll-like comments (especially from Putin bootlickers and the anti-Semites).

iamback

Jim Rickards has suggested that the Central Banks are allowing China to get more physical gold with the idea that a currency reset needs consensus among the players.  Rickards suggests that the metric that will be used will be based on gold reserves (that are aligned pretty close to each major player's GDP).  So, if China were to have about the same gold reserves as the USA, a reset could be worked out balancing each country's interests and clout.

+ 1 for mentioning that Armstrong would reveal his best predictions for subscribers.  That would only make sense.  Predicting exact times is very difficult and a fool's game for us "99%-ers" (referring to Knowledge Age, not wealth).