I have heard of Chris Martenson, though I don't know much about him other than that he is a biochemist.

However, stock prices are being inflated by significant increases in margin debt: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-0 ... e-day.html

I am still watching the video on the link provided in the OP, but the first 20 minutes indicate to me that Robert Wiedemer is just another inflationist, Fed-hating scare-monger. How original.

Loren Michael wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:Shit, people make black swan predictions here all the time. The perfect storm for political and economic upheaval are always just around the corner. A put-up-or-shut-up mechanism would end a lot of what amounts to white noise.

No one I know of has said "economic upheaval (is) just around the corner," so please find a quote and substantiate your claim, or retract it as false.

That's not a quote, that's my assessment.

Well, then, my assessment is your post is bullshit.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:Shit, people make black swan predictions here all the time. The perfect storm for political and economic upheaval are always just around the corner. A put-up-or-shut-up mechanism would end a lot of what amounts to white noise.

No one I know of has said "economic upheaval (is) just around the corner," so please find a quote and substantiate your claim, or retract it as false.

That's not a quote, that's my assessment.

Well, then, my assessment is your post is bullshit.

I'm sure you do.

Do you disagree that a put-up-or-shut-up mechanism as I gestured toward would be beneficial with respect to keeping extreme claims not sincerely held from cropping up as often as they do?

Haha, everyone has probably made a 10% return in the last 3 months. What a hack.(the "scientist")

I wish he had suffered a financial penalty, and I wish people in the reasonable right had a minor profit.

MOAR BETTING

Didn't he say his clients moved their money out of stocks? Hopefully he suffers some backlash there. But then again when you hire the financial equivalent of a dowser for trading advice you might believe anything.

Triple-top even has its own wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_top ... ple_bottom

woo! woo!

Of course, first and second peaks are perfect point to place sell orders.

Naturally, that reveals a top, in retrospect. People who are making or losing money will do anything to explain it.

Loren Michael wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
No one I know of has said "economic upheaval (is) just around the corner," so please find a quote and substantiate your claim, or retract it as false.

That's not a quote, that's my assessment.

Well, then, my assessment is your post is bullshit.

I'm sure you do.

Do you disagree that a put-up-or-shut-up mechanism as I gestured toward would be beneficial with respect to keeping extreme claims not sincerely held from cropping up as often as they do?

I apoligize for being late with this reply but I have been ill and quite unable to post these past few months. I'm better now although I'm not yet sure I can post consistently.

Since eonomics is not a science, I don't see how a "put up or shut up" mechanism could be made to work. Anyone can make any claim or prediction or assertion about our econnomic future and all we can do is subject them to various tests of logic or reasonableness or plausibility.

For example, it's plausible that an economic collapse could occur at almost any time, because past collapses have been sufficiently surprising and frequent to illustrate the possibility. As much as many would like there to be, there are no guranatees against collapse in economics, especially perhaps the economics of today, which are just one big gamble.

My own considered opinion is that we cannot continue to operate an economic system that arose in earlier times which has become entirely inconsistent with and disconneted from modern knowledge about the way things work and in the face of contemporary economic needs. It's not the 1900's anymore. We have entered upon a scientific age in which nearly everything is done based on scientific knowledge and brainpower, yet our economics remains mired in unscientific ways, ways that tend to produce dysfunction, social chaos and loss, and disorder.

Evolution to science based economics seems inevitable because civilization requires the stability it would allow us to achieve, without which we're at great risk.

His predictions are bollocks because they take no account of how asset prices can be held up (at least in nominal terms) with money printing (or its electronic equivalent), which is not an economic phenomenon obeying some kind of underlying economic "laws"; it is a politicial one and so is far less predictable, or is entirely predictable depending on who is wielding power.

Money printing is why the market has not dropped by 60% already. Thus, we are far more likey to experience an inflationary bust than we are to experience a deflationary collapse.

stevecook172001 wrote:His predictions are bollocks because they take no account of how asset prices can be held up (at least in nominal terms) with money printing (or its electronic equivalent), which is not an economic phenomenon obeying some kind of underlying economic "laws"; it is a politicial one and so is far less predictable, or is entirely predictable depending on who is wielding power.

Money printing is why the market has not dropped by 60% already. Thus, we are far more likey to experience an inflationary bust than we are to experience a deflationary collapse.

Asset pricing isn't the only variable, however.

The econmy suffered a major contraction in 2008 without there being an inflationary push or big time deflation. The threat of excessive debt can drive a collapse.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:His predictions are bollocks because they take no account of how asset prices can be held up (at least in nominal terms) with money printing (or its electronic equivalent), which is not an economic phenomenon obeying some kind of underlying economic "laws"; it is a politicial one and so is far less predictable, or is entirely predictable depending on who is wielding power.

Money printing is why the market has not dropped by 60% already. Thus, we are far more likey to experience an inflationary bust than we are to experience a deflationary collapse.

Asset pricing isn't the only variable, however.

The econmy suffered a major contraction in 2008 without there being an inflationary push or big time deflation. The threat of excessive debt can drive a collapse.

Not if that debts in the bank can be covered with funny money and the debts of householders can be coveed with ZIRP or near-ZIRP. Which is, of course, precisely, what has happened over the last 5 years.

Whilst collapse cannot be avoided if the debts are big enough, whether that collapse is deflationary or inflationary is entirely a matter of political and economic policy. All things being equal, policy-makers will always go for inflation because it represent a covert default as opposed to an overt one. Overt defaults tend to frighten the horses and produce unfortunate things like revolutions.

Also, the reason there was not massive deflation or inflation in 2008 is because all of that funny money simply sat in the banks on their balance sheets allowing them to pretend (and still pretend) they are not actually bust. Where it has started to bleed into since then is the stock market. Which is precusely why, whenever the US looks like it is about to post postivie employment datam, the stick markets throw a shit fit and lose about 2% overnight.

Why?

Because traders make the entirely rational judgement that this may mean that QE may stop, and they know full well that is the only thing holding the stock market prices up.

That's the new economic reality dontcha know. Up is down and good is bad.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:
That's not a quote, that's my assessment.

Well, then, my assessment is your post is bullshit.

I'm sure you do.

Do you disagree that a put-up-or-shut-up mechanism as I gestured toward would be beneficial with respect to keeping extreme claims not sincerely held from cropping up as often as they do?

I apoligize for being late with this reply but I have been ill and quite unable to post these past few months. I'm better now although I'm not yet sure I can post consistently.

I'm sad to hear that. I hope you recover fully, and quickly.

Since eonomics is not a science, I don't see how a "put up or shut up" mechanism could be made to work. Anyone can make any claim or prediction or assertion about our econnomic future and all we can do is subject them to various tests of logic or reasonableness or plausibility.

On the contrary, economics is a science. But, irrespective of that, we could simply make predictions, put money on those predictions, and then see if they are borne out. If there are consequences to being wrong, people will tend to be more conservative with their predictions rather than relying on the counting-hits-ignoring-misses thing that people do to wash away all the wrongness, the same feature that allows Dick Morris to have a job.