Martin Armstrong

English language haystack
Post Reply
User avatar
Paul
Platinum Member
Posts: 837
Joined: 10 Oct 2011, 16:27

Re: Martin Armstrong

Post by Paul »

world economic conference coming in Berlin
2 days. 1500$. no date yet.

I do like Berlin. I don't have to fly,
are other people considering ?

I am ...
"Taxes are a barbaric relic of the past"
User avatar
Rasta
Gold Member
Posts: 1479
Joined: 07 Oct 2011, 15:16

Re: Martin Armstrong

Post by Rasta »

One Judge Stands Alone Against the SEC

Now What's Going On?
There is always an exception to generalizations
Image
Eventually there will be an awakening, a balancing of the scales and a bill to be paid, and for that I hold gold - Jim Sinclair
User avatar
Rasta
Gold Member
Posts: 1479
Joined: 07 Oct 2011, 15:16

Re: Martin Armstrong

Post by Rasta »

Rasta wrote:One Judge Stands Alone Against the SEC

Now What's Going On?
There is always an exception to generalizations
Image
The last paragraph I'd like to outline:
Enough is enough! It is time to clean up this garbage. Get rid of all these regulatory agencies and replace them with a single entity that actually regulates. We will see how the Second Circuit Court of Appeals will deal with this contest. Will they do what is right and uphold Judge Rakoff? Or will they as usual bow to the dictatorial unelected desires of the SEC and the backroom corruption? Obviously, nobody is looking at MF Global and why after this mess should ANYONE trust the US courts and New York ever again?

This caught my attention, as it is the usual fallacy that a regulatory body can actually be smarter then the market. Is Martin Armstrong falling into this fallacy, or is he stating something else, like the amount of regulatory bodies is actually contributing to the ineffectiveness of protecting the people, and might have been put in placed [as a large number of inefficient bodies] on purpose?
Eventually there will be an awakening, a balancing of the scales and a bill to be paid, and for that I hold gold - Jim Sinclair
User avatar
Paul
Platinum Member
Posts: 837
Joined: 10 Oct 2011, 16:27

Re: Martin Armstrong

Post by Paul »

My interpretation for regulator would be referee here
the more referees the less effective

thieves will always be there
point is
they should also be punished and not structurally get away with it
when rules are clear and honoured one referee is enough
"Taxes are a barbaric relic of the past"
User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 32
Joined: 13 Nov 2011, 05:46

Re: Martin Armstrong

Post by Malcolm »

Rasta wrote: ...as it is the usual fallacy that a regulatory body can actually be smarter then the market.
I'm interested in talking about regulation. It doesn't seem simple to me. Whenever the two parties trading distrust each other, a third party is required. The third party provides a guarantee that both parties fulfill their portion of the trade. This 'third party' role is 'a regulator.' It might be a bureaucrat, it might be a judge, it might be a mafia gunman. Since we all find it necessary to act in situations where trust is less than ideal, we all need regulators. I don't think there are any examples of market's without regulators of some sort.

Ideally, the 'regulator' is entirely disinterested in the transaction, all knowing, infinitely wealthy and so satisfied with life that neither of the trading parties can offer an interesting bribe. None of these ideal characteristics are ever met, but that doesn't mean an attempt is unworthy the effort.

Malcolm
User avatar
Rasta
Gold Member
Posts: 1479
Joined: 07 Oct 2011, 15:16

Re: Martin Armstrong

Post by Rasta »

Malcolm wrote:
Rasta wrote: ...as it is the usual fallacy that a regulatory body can actually be smarter then the market.
I'm interested in talking about regulation. It doesn't seem simple to me. Whenever the two parties trading distrust each other, a third party is required. The third party provides a guarantee that both parties fulfill their portion of the trade. This 'third party' role is 'a regulator.' It might be a bureaucrat, it might be a judge, it might be a mafia gunman. Since we all find it necessary to act in situations where trust is less than ideal, we all need regulators. I don't think there are any examples of market's without regulators of some sort.

Ideally, the 'regulator' is entirely disinterested in the transaction, all knowing, infinitely wealthy and so satisfied with life that neither of the trading parties can offer an interesting bribe. None of these ideal characteristics are ever met, but that doesn't mean an attempt is unworthy the effort.

Malcolm
Don't think regulatory "body", but regulatory "force". When we say force of nature, we don't mean a theoretical "mother" nature steering things.

The force of all market participants is that force. When all participants decided that cheating is allowed, then cheating is allowed. The usual pitfall by bureaucrats is that they assume a single regulatory body can be omnipotent, have all the knowledge, wisdom and steering power. In reality, it has none of them, as it isn't the market. So regulatory body can be only something that keeps track of the rules. But I belief it can never regulate, or only to a degree where it has support of the market participants (which is impossible as there will be always a single soul against whatever other people want).

See it like internet ratings, whether you go with ratings on Ebay, or google like's. As market participant, you go to a marketplace where there is a great deal of confidence (a lot of good reviews, a lot of like's are given). And you transact with people you trust (according to the like's again). Sometimes you get burned, which can't be prevented by a regulatory body. Someone abusing the system is much more likely to be spotted by a "free market", then by a regulatory body. A couple of bad reviews will be more punishment then an "official warning", as the market will trust the market more then the official body.
Eventually there will be an awakening, a balancing of the scales and a bill to be paid, and for that I hold gold - Jim Sinclair
User avatar
Rasta
Gold Member
Posts: 1479
Joined: 07 Oct 2011, 15:16

Re: Martin Armstrong

Post by Rasta »

Rakoff - Part II

Now What's Going On?
Judge Rakoff against the SEC
2012 Precious Metals Report Available
Image
Eventually there will be an awakening, a balancing of the scales and a bill to be paid, and for that I hold gold - Jim Sinclair
User avatar
Rasta
Gold Member
Posts: 1479
Joined: 07 Oct 2011, 15:16

Re: Martin Armstrong

Post by Rasta »

Europe Hit by Downgrades

Now What's Going On?
Image

...
No government debt will be safe! Nobody will ever pay off anything. It is merely a question of time. That appears to be coming next year – 2013. By 2017, we may end up with a new World Monetary System.
Eventually there will be an awakening, a balancing of the scales and a bill to be paid, and for that I hold gold - Jim Sinclair
User avatar
Indiana Jones
Freegold Member
Posts: 4765
Joined: 05 Oct 2011, 16:00
Contact:

Re: Martin Armstrong

Post by Indiana Jones »

Armstrong/s 1998 pdf presentation (last pages):

he predicts:

1998 = Collapse of Russia
1999 = Low Gold & Oil
2000 = Technology Bubble
(Like Railroads in 1907)
2002 = Bottom US Share Market
2007 = Real Estate Bubble, Oil hits $100
2009 = Start of Sovereign Debt Crisis
2011-15 = Japan Economic Decline
EURO begins to crack due to debt crisis
2015.75 = Sovereign Debt Big Bang


so how about that ..... ;)

http://www.martinarmstrong.org/files/19 ... 20Tour.pdf
Everything that needs to be said has already been said.
But since no one was listening, everything must be said again.
User avatar
Paul
Platinum Member
Posts: 837
Joined: 10 Oct 2011, 16:27

Re: Martin Armstrong

Post by Paul »

pretty good
thats what I'll say

(understatement of the year...)
"Taxes are a barbaric relic of the past"
Post Reply