Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Martin Armstrong?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Martin Armstrong?

    S'up folks. New here. Been lurkin off and on for a spell.

    Was wonderin if y'all caught the New Yorker piece on this guy? What a trip!

    I'm down with cycles. I can get down with Pi. And, the whole 3141 days or 8.6 year cycle thing "seems" like it could work. Obviously, the article, nor Armstrong himself actually get into the nuts and bolts behind his count. But, it is interesting. And besides that. I love his newsletters. He's writing them in jail, so he's got a chip on his shoulder, but, beyond that..........I think he's spot on.

    Nate's homepage has a link to a bunch of his newsletters.


    Right now, the whole 3141 days nailed the tightest spread in corporates vs. treasuries......"supposedly" (I'm not knockin the theory, but its hard to get a solid track record of this guy, but I trust Nate......and the dude writes well).

    So, the next day is late 2015......Which, I think, really sets up well time wise for the top in gold/currency crisis.

    Needed a topic to get the ball rolling on this board.........and this is what I'm trippin out about lately.
    Last edited by Horace Kent; October 23, 2009, 08:50 AM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Martin Armstrong?

    Welcome to iTulip. I like your avatar.

    I've thought a bit about Armstrong's ideas. I can't argue with his record, which seems to be good, and I read his bizarre hadwritten newsletters, but his pi theory I find difficult to accept. It's fine to propose a theory, but for my mind, there should be a mechanism proposed as well. Otherwise it's just magic, and you can't tell under what circumstances it works and what it doesn't.

    Cycles, fine. But why 3141 days? Why not 2718? That's where I stand with his work.
    It's Economics vs Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics wins.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Martin Armstrong?

      Originally posted by *T* View Post

      Cycles, fine. But why 3141 days? Why not 2718? That's where I stand with his work.
      Wasn't that number derived from a computer generated program that tracked long term cycles? He claims that was at the heart of his incarceration; he wouldn't share the program with the giant vampire squid (GS).

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Martin Armstrong?

        Originally posted by *T* View Post
        But why 3141 days? Why not 2718? That's where I stand with his work.
        The 3141 days came about like this. He was researching panics at the time. He found a newspaper from 1907 with a list of them. So, he took the number of years up that point in 1907 and divided them by the number of panics which came to 8.6 years. 3141 days ~ 8.6 years.........more Pi tripping out ensued and further cemented its importance in his mind.

        Maybe there's somethin there. I wouldn't doubt it. But, without fully seeing his methodology I can buy in wholesale.

        Regardless, I do buy his anti-government views. I don't know my history very well......but, they seem close to the mark with what I've witnessed/read.

        edit......guess links aren't allowed....my bad.

        I really like Nate....if you want to read some of Armstrong's letters google nathan's economic edge - i'm sure most are familiar with his blog.
        Last edited by Horace Kent; October 23, 2009, 08:52 AM.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Martin Armstrong?

          I have some respect for Armstrong but I've always taken his numerology (not his cycles theories) to be more of those clever little riddles where you walk someone through adding this and dividing that and they always end up with the same number. I'm not trying to 'hate' on his work because I truly believe in cyclical theory but perhaps my mind is not mathematical enough to see the matrix.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Martin Armstrong?

            I like Martin's articles, there is always a history lesson and most of the time I can't argue with his logic.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Martin Armstrong?

              I always look(ed) forward to Barts commentary on his articles.

              Where's Bart?

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Martin Armstrong?

                Originally posted by strittmatter View Post
                I always look(ed) forward to Barts commentary on his articles.

                Where's Bart?
                on leave? where's finster?

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Martin Armstrong?

                  Originally posted by metalman View Post
                  on leave? where's finster?
                  yea, him too?

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Martin Armstrong?

                    Originally posted by strittmatter View Post
                    yea, him too?
                    Finster has posted on one of the gold threads in the last week or so.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Martin Armstrong?

                      Every time I read Armstrong, I see a nice summary of past events. But beyond that, almost nothing.

                      The latest letter is no different. Though there is a nice recap on banking from the start of the United States onward - albeit with some assertions which I personally find unlikely - there isn't much actually said about future events:

                      1) The Fed and/or US government should use a model to understand the consequences of its actions
                      2) Goldman Sachs is not a conspiracy. But it is protecting its backside from a likely historical redux of bank beating up
                      3) The US needs to stop accumulating debt or a collapse will ensue
                      4) China should only buy short term Treasuries. But then, China already is only buying short term Treasuries.
                      5) The Fed should go back to just being a last gasp capital provider as opposed to consumer regulator, US economy manager, etc etc

                      Perhaps I missed it, but I see nothing of note in this missive.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Martin Armstrong?

                        Who else read the recent Armstrong that included his history of banking in the 19th century into the 20th century and the reasons behind the creation of the Fed?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Martin Armstrong?

                          Originally posted by babbittd View Post
                          Who else read the recent Armstrong that included his history of banking in the 19th century into the 20th century and the reasons behind the creation of the Fed?

                          http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...930#post130930

                          Comment

                          Previous template Next
                          Working...
                          X