cobran20

Martin Armstrong's Economic Writings

3839 posts in this topic

i spose he did call a few crashes and booms., wonder what he actually did to end up in jail. i do like his posts tho. just not his fees for the early work.

maybe he was telling his clients how to evade the govs tentacles, sure thats enough to get you in jail, after thats what hes been railing against this whole last post.,

Some of his older newsletters went into details about his case and the charges laid against him. He has also made available copies of legal documents filed in the court system.

BTW there was an institutional report that was 50k a year too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I always wonder how much credence to place upon the writings of someone who has been convicted of crime, whether rightly or wrongly.

I have read this latest, and there is a lot of diatribe over the evils of government, but then that was part of Marx's own writings as well.

But I'm struggling to understand something Martin says in this latest paper.

I'm not doubting he may be right, just trying to work out the mechanics behind it.

His claim is that this particular financial situation (compared to the Great Depression), will not result in a low Dow Jones Share Price Index, but rather a higher index, in direct relationship to a high price in gold.

I think (if I have read it right) that his claim is that this is a sovereign debt crisis, and therefore the effects are destroying other parts of the economy rather than the traditional indices that we associate with an economic disaster.

If he is correct then my questions are these:

Where is the money coming from to invest in shares, and should we be in shares rather than cash, given that Martin believes they will continue to rally?

What index do we need to be watching then, to determine whether a major crash is imminent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

money is coming from the fed,

at0.25% interest, if it works and you make money, you pay the .25%, if it fails you get bailed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I always wonder how much credence to place upon the writings of someone who has been convicted of crime, whether rightly or wrongly.

I have read this latest, and there is a lot of diatribe over the evils of government, but then that was part of Marx's own writings as well.

But I'm struggling to understand something Martin says in this latest paper.

I'm not doubting he may be right, just trying to work out the mechanics behind it.

His claim is that this particular financial situation (compared to the Great Depression), will not result in a low Dow Jones Share Price Index, but rather a higher index, in direct relationship to a high price in gold.

I think (if I have read it right) that his claim is that this is a sovereign debt crisis, and therefore the effects are destroying other parts of the economy rather than the traditional indices that we associate with an economic disaster.

If he is correct then my questions are these:

Where is the money coming from to invest in shares, and should we be in shares rather than cash, given that Martin believes they will continue to rally?

What index do we need to be watching then, to determine whether a major crash is imminent?

Zimbabwe destroyed its currency via printing and its stock market rocketed due to its depreciating currency and people jumping into the market to try to maintain purchasing power, in the same manner as they jumped into gold. I like to watch stock, gold and interest rates to monito the effects of government policy. IMO, if the stock markets don't seriously roll over, then I tend to agree with Armstrong's view that the the March 2009 low will hold for the foreseeable future and we've been climbing the wall of worry of a new bull market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the money coming from to invest in shares, and should we be in shares rather than cash, given that Martin believes they will continue to rally?

What index do we need to be watching then, to determine whether a major crash is imminent?

If people believe cash will diminish in value then they will buy 'stuff', and the value of 'stuff' will go up against the currency. Shares are a small ownership in something tangible so may be an avenue for people moving their capital from cash to shares. Another reason is if the (big) bond buyers get out of bonds - start of a secular bond bear market. If people dump cash and bonds that's a lot of capital! That capital needs to go somewhere... if not bonds or cash then where to go? It could be shares, property, precious metals, commodities, rare artwork, collectibles, etc.

No idea what index to watch to pick a turning point. Armstrong's model is based on his pi cycle theory, the next major turning point going from memory is June 2011, with a larger turning point in 2016. Although my views change, based on his theory, at the beginning of the year I was looking for an Oct/Nov panic, followed by QE2, with a (confidence) low in June '11, followed by the mother-of-all crack-up booms lasting five years, followed by the mother-of-all busts. Just a theory though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank-you to all those who responded to my questions.

Very helpful and very generous.

Think I'm beginning to make sense of it now.

Without your help, I was floundering to grasp his logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good one on currencies. He maintains his view of A$1 = US$2! :o

Show me the money

agree it is a good one.

Still I don't know how he can be so convinced about the AU$, he can't say for sure commodity will be doing well in future like in recent years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agree it is a good one.

Still I don't know how he can be so convinced about the AU$, he can't say for sure commodity will be doing well in future like in recent years

We can only assume it is based on his cycle work and where the capital is concentrating. Until China rolls over, we can expect for our minerals to be in demand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can only assume it is based on his cycle work and where the capital is concentrating. Until China rolls over, we can expect for our minerals to be in demand?

I think it is just enough China to Sneeze to get australia and the A$ in trouble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can only assume it is based on his cycle work and where the capital is concentrating. Until China rolls over, we can expect for our minerals to be in demand?

Commodity bull market started in, what, 2000? Typically the cycles are 15-25 years so based on Armstrong's previous work I'm assuming commodities may continue to boom until 2016 (he says this is a MAJOR turning point) or even 2020 (he says this is a major turning point for China).

I guess if countries are competing to debase their currencies then commodities will be in hot demand... why would you buy paper that is being deliberately destroyed in value?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indirect v Direct Stimulus

Very bullish on gold (in $US) and this gem that I 100% agree with and buckley's chance of the RBA or the government implementing such policy:

'... I would not have given 10c to the bankers. I would have gathered the deposits and then ensure 100% to be returned, but let the bankers fail. To let those high-flying banks dig their way out of a hole with public money leaving the economy behind, was something you would expect from dumb and dummer ...'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but, isnt there something in mortgages that banks can call em in at any time,. like when they need the cash? saying to banks, pay up would force them to CALL IN ALL THEIR MORTGAGES and thus sell lots of peoples homes for what ever they can get.

then the gov would be up for mortgages on all the foreclosed homes. to bail out the tenants. not just the weekly payments , but the total owing. then the banks could maybe pay out the deposits.

this is assuming i am right that banks can foreclose when ever they want,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but, isnt there something in mortgages that banks can call em in at any time,. like when they need the cash? saying to banks, pay up would force them to CALL IN ALL THEIR MORTGAGES and thus sell lots of peoples homes for what ever they can get.

then the gov would be up for mortgages on all the foreclosed homes. to bail out the tenants. not just the weekly payments , but the total owing. then the banks could maybe pay out the deposits.

this is assuming i am right that banks can foreclose when ever they want,

Good question, does anybody have a definitive answer? I like the concept of banks being aware that they will not get bailed out - it makes them risk averse when they know that they won't get bailed out of the RBA/Government. I also think that the government should not have allowed banks to get involved in merchant banking and insurance related activities via their acquisitions, increasing their exposure well beyond the levels that you would get in pure banking activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but, isnt there something in mortgages that banks can call em in at any time,. like when they need the cash? saying to banks, pay up would force them to CALL IN ALL THEIR MORTGAGES and thus sell lots of peoples homes for what ever they can get.

then the gov would be up for mortgages on all the foreclosed homes. to bail out the tenants. not just the weekly payments , but the total owing. then the banks could maybe pay out the deposits.

this is assuming i am right that banks can foreclose when ever they want,

I would like to know the answer to that question as well.

Like SG, I have a sinking suspicion that banks, and any lenders for that matter, can actually have a first call upon their money, thus forcing the lender to either re-finance or hand over the asset.

But I've been wrong before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know reading mortgage contract before there was a clause if you use a property for illegal purposes then they can foreclose on you . ill have to ask someone with an actual mortgage or in the know. ill research and get back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now