Post
Topic
Board Economics
Re: Martin Armstrong Discussion
by
TPTB_need_war
on 01/02/2016, 01:31:55 UTC
Nevertheless, let me once again show everybody how stupid you are. Here http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/22328 already after the YTD-peak he said oil would rise into 2017 (the opposite to what happened).

You did not comprehend what he wrote there:

Quote
The USA is amazingly going to produce more oil that Saudi Arabia and Russia making it the largest producer in the world according to all the data so far with just Four years into the shale revolution.

[...]

Nevertheless, oil peaked intraday in 2009 but the highest yearly close came in 2011. It is poised to rally into 2017 and it appears this is lining up with our war models. We will be looking at this market and other in the near future. The patterns are interesting and the fundamentals may speak of increased supply in the USA, but the price may be driven by other events especially when we have people like Lindsey Graham willing to kill everyone’s children for his personal hatred of the US constitution and the world

What he was saying is that as the war model enters the hot war phase in 2017, oil may rally off the lows. And indeed this may still happen. His model has always been about private assets, USD, US stocks, and gold rallying in 2017 as the rest of the world sinks into an economic collapse cauldron and the Cycle of War. This was an orthogonal shorter-term cycle than the longer-term cycle which is that oil peaked in 2009 and would be on an overall downward trend towards $35 (then $25). Read more carefully. He didn't write that oil will rally "from now" into 2017. He stated only "to rally into 2017" meaning it is an event that his computer indicated would happen in 2017. That is a shorter-term cycle superimposed on the longer-term cycle which he stated was a peak in 2009.

I already said you do not comprehend what you are slandering. Get off my lawn idiot.

You continue to ignore the fact that MA's models involve multiple overlapping cycles.

Here in September when oil was at 90 he still did not see the upcoming collapse http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/23450 and even thought it might have been a plot against Russia. Here in November, oil at 80, he still does not get it http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/24733. And only here http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/25545 in December when oil collapsed below 65 he started to acknowledge ”a serious trend change is potentially on the horizon”. Notice, below 65, and not at 100+ as you claim.

Go find the blog post where oil was still $100+ and he predicted the $54 close for 2014. Also you are misconstruing what he is intending to convey in the above posts. The longer-term prediction was not changed by what he wrote in those posts.

In the first link MA wrote that if the $82 level is broken then a sharp decline will result (which is consistent with his prior prediction of a $54 closing for 2014):

Quote
The oil price has fallen in the past week for the first time since one and a half years under the $ 100 mark dropping to test the $90 level. On our models, the critical support lies at $92 and $82 going into 2015. A year-end closing below $92 will shift oil into a neutral position whereas a 2014 closing below $82 will warn of a sharp decline cannot be ruled out.

In the second post sloanf cited, he reiterates that his model calls for a lower in the $30 vicinity and he also refutes your claim above about the meaning of the 2017 rally which again clarifies will be after 2016 (and thus after the predicted decline from $100 to $54 closing for 2014 with an ultimate low $25 - $35)!

Quote
Crude oil has fallen to the $80 area and a monthly closing below $78 will signal a sharp drop into the $60 zone is likely. The long-term support actually begins at $57 and the major support which held previously is still there at the $32-31 zone. While we have the intraday high in 2008, the actual highest yearly closing was 2011 with the intraday high in gold. Here too we do not see any reversal in trend to the upside before 2016.

In the third link sloanf foamed out his sloppy, MA again reiterates the $50ish closing price for 2014:

Quote
The panic cycle was due this week. I have warned that a year-end closing below $75 will signal a serious trend change is potentially on the horizon. However, the critical support lies at $57. A year-end closing below this will signal a massive collapse a deflationary cycle will impact the oil producing regions.

sloanf is hallucinating.

How many times do we have to go through this?

My thought exactly. How many more times sloanf?