Quote from: altcoinUK on January 24, 2016, 08:34:33 PM

Quote from: sloanf on January 24, 2016, 06:20:15 PM

Quote from: altcoinUK on January 24, 2016, 03:37:52 PM

I said many times, I am a big fan of MA, but I am starting to get fed up with these BS, such as the today blog posted by a "reader" at http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/date/2016/01:

"Can you elaborate on how these forecasts are even possible for you obviously do what no one else has ever been able to accomplish?"

Why Armstrong needs this used car salesman approach is beyond my imagination.

Well, I have already explained it here:

Quote from: sloanf on January 15, 2016, 05:02:04 PM

What is also interesting is that he goes way out of his way to reinforce that idea of exclusivity of his analysis by keeping babbling about:
1. Unique computer model
2. Unique historic data that cost hundreds of millions
3. Unique approach etc
that you may wonder why? Looks like somebody is trying to sell you something, no? The reality is that nobody saw his computer (so it may very well be yet another bs), his data or anything. He claims that everybody sells you their newsletters, subscriptions etc. He is the only one who does not because he is filthy rich (in his own words "the markets have been like an ATM machine for me") and has a higher calling in life - to bring knowledge to the masses and all that. Yet he sells some bs dvds, reports, coins, etc, at exorbitant prices and charges thousands for conferences.
Something just does not add up here to say the least.

That salesman approach and all those empty claims as part of it are there for one reason only - to get your money (pretty much how he did it with the Japanese). Hence all those bs and lies with history and physics to create an image of a guru. Crooks never change - you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

I think you are taking the scepticism about Armstrong to an unfair level, which has an undesired effect on your objectivity.

As far as I know the Japanese investors never complained about Armstrong. I also disagree that his history and physics related opinion a "bs and lies" as you said. I think he makes many logical conclusions based on historical data. It remains to bee seen whether his analysis and approach, his opinion about the existence of cycles can be a formed into a new economy theory or not.

All I am saying, it is not very classy to publish "reader's opinion" like "you obviously do what no one else has ever been able to accomplish". It seems Armstrong receives such extreme cheerleader hosanna every day, which is obviously very unlikely. I think he makes those questions/opinions up, because WTF, which grown up man would write to another grown up man such heart breaking complementing syrup? So yes, I agree with you this is a not very classy second car dealer salesman approach. I understand your scepticism, but I think you got to the point where you can't see any more his work objectively. You don't realize that he is obviously a very smart man and many of his calls are spot on.

I agree with much of this. I think he gets much of the macro stuff pretty right. I dont trade and I havent paid for his reports. Sloanf has some valid, yet weak, criticisms (how many economists etc make 100% correct calls anyway? Should we dismiss everyone whose call is off?). But then Sloanf overlays his own assumptions, gliding over the fact that they are in fact, just assumptions.

- No proof there is no model

Yet he was jailed for failing to give up his assets which included the model. Further, in the doco there are other programmers talking about working with the model, setting up traps & watching hackers intrude.

- No proof he didn't pay his team to spend a year in London Museum analysing historical data back to Greco - Roman times.

End of the day, if you don't agree with MA's stuff, don't read it.