Quote from: r0ach on January 19, 2017, 01:19:16 AM

You do not because you keep pretending it's impossible for current civilization to enter another dark age. "Increasing entropy" is not a roadblock to stop a dark age, it's the exact opposite. How do you get this logic completely backwards? The more complexity in a system, the harder it falls. The more inputs required to make a system function, the more of an exponentially, unsustainable resource curve you have being required to make it work (both in terms of specialized humans and physical commodities/overall energy input).

So technology is doomed by design to experience intense crash cycles and wipe out many previous gains unless you live in an entirely open ecosystem, which we don't. You could maybe try to claim the solar energy radiated from the sun is a bypass to this fact, but you would still need resources to build panels all over the place and continuously more resources to service and replace them since humans don't natively absorb sunlight and turn it into fuel to do work. Not to mention metric tons of batteries everywhere.

A child cannot withstand most illnesses as well as an adult, or even an adolescent. A dark age is like an illness contracted during youth that is relatively harmless later on. Humanity reached a point about two thousand years ago where its spread and resilience was no longer threatened by any single calamity, otherwise a dark age culminating in something like the black plague might have effectively wiped out the species.

Since humanity had grown, in overall complexity as well as number, it was able to survive.

Quote from: r0ach on January 19, 2017, 01:19:16 AM

So first Armstrong has a magical computer that hands him information about a supposedly deterministic universe which would allow anyone with access to this data to instantly become the richest person on earth, but instead of becoming rich, he just needs US to give him OUR money? You don't see anything wrong with this picture?

The systems used to generate the forecast do not run for free: there are input costs. It is also not wrong to earn a living.

If you knew the cost of the subscription, you'd see how comical the question is. It seems that what you're really railing against is the difficulty in understanding the forecasting system which, admittedly, is not the easiest thing to grasp.

Read through the models, follow along with some of the forecasts and historical charts, and you'll start to get a feel for how it works. It took me a few years to start seeing consistent results, and they've been well worth it.

Quote from: r0ach on January 19, 2017, 01:19:16 AM

The fact that Armstrong has the exact same prediction and timeline for everything no matter which candidate won the 2016 election should show you it's complete bullshit. Yes, we all know the system is going to crash, but it would likely play out in vastly different ways and timelines under the banker preferred candidate and non-banker preferred candidate.

While landing a plane at a steep angle and in thick fog, Clinton wants to push the yoke hard over while Trump is trying to pull up. The former obliterates everyone aboard while the latter at least affords a chance of survival.

The time frame is nearly identical - it's the intensity that differs. Either way the end result is still decline.

Quote from: r0ach on January 19, 2017, 02:27:46 AM

I wouldn't touch the stock market right now with someone else's money, let alone my own. We will either have some form of super inflation or the DOW is gonna bring the pain in losses soon.

According to Armstrong (I don't have links offhand, and the numbers are approximate):

If the DOW breaks to new highs this year, the 40k target is in play.

If the DOW declines below 17k, further collapse is indicated.

If the DOW stays within the 17-20k range during 2017, the high target rises to 60k between 2018-2020.

At the close of 2016 the DOW did not rise above a key level and has remained range-bound. We'll have to simply watch for the two breakout scenarios, otherwise acknowledge the range and new target.

The reason for equities continuing to rise is that there is no other asset pool that can absorb the kind of flows that are seeking safety. Government debt, including most currencies, are becoming hostile to investment thanks to negative yield while various regulatory uncertainties are precluding major flows into real estate and many other capital-intensive assets.

That leaves a select few currencies, predominantly the US dollar, and highly liquid assets that are not prone to the kind of capital controls and stigma that precious metals are: stocks and corporate debt.

As you astutely noted in your next comment, it is possible that a government may confiscate wealth. It might not be as easy for a government to confiscate stocks as it is to simply lock down bank accounts, bonds and retirement funds. That is why crypto is the new gold.

Quote from: sidhujag on January 19, 2017, 04:32:14 AM

Why would interest rates rise in an inflationary supply expanding scenario? Doesnt it rise to curb deflation?

Deflation and inflation are constantly occurring at the same time. If the money supply is not rising faster than it is being demanded as the economy grows, then deflation is greater than inflation. The key point is that nothing is static and the money supply is always changing in relation to economic growth (or contraction).

As the dollar rises in value, foreign businesses will have to spend more of their local currency to acquire dollars to pay back dollar-denominated loans that were pushed over the past several years. Demand for dollars rises, so the dollar grows stronger at an increasing rate.

Inflation may be occurring domestically in the US but the rest of the world is demanding dollars as well, offsetting the money supply increase by a significant margin. This is when the interest rates will start to rise in an attempt to slow demand, since the unlikely alternative of simply introducing more dollars at a pace sufficient to handle the demand has become politically unpalatable.

I imagine the situation as a flamethrower where the velocity of fuel being expelled is too slow. Even though fuel is being propelled out, the flame advances up the nozzle faster than it can leave. There is a point where the process can no longer be reversed and then it's only a moment before the entire tank BLEVEs. Monetary authorities will not be able to react quickly enough.

Quote from: r0ach on January 19, 2017, 05:19:56 AM

Interest rates rise in a no bid market. The alternative is that the govt confiscates your money in the bank and replaces it with bonds.

Yes, although this is when confidence is lost and will occur at the tail end of the demand rush as dollar value tumbles. It is the steepest part of a waterfall decline.