—Martin Armstrong—Deflation& 2015.75

Dateline: 26 January 2015

Martin Armstrong

I like to listen to a lot of different economic analysts. But I don’t listen to anything presented by the mainstream media. That’s because the mainstream media is clearly a propaganda arm of the government-corporate cartel that now runs America. You know this already, right?

So I listen to (and read) alternative economic discussion on the internet. To a man (and woman), all these independent economic analysts are expecting an economic catastrophe in America's future. For so many economists to agree on something of such magnitude is rare, because economists are well known for having different opinions.

But there is certainly no consensus among these people about exactly how the economy will eventually implode. For example, many have been predicting a hyper-inflationary crash, while a few have been predicting a deflationary crash. 

Among the deflationist minority has been Martin Armstrong. 

Martin Armstrong is a fascinating fellow. When you first see him, or to listen to him, or read his writings, you might not recognize him for what he is, which is a high level (governments and institutions), world-class economic advisor with an amazing track record of accuracy in his predictions (so the story goes).

Martin is a long-time student of history and, if I understand correctly, he has developed a computer program (based on pi) that looks at historical cycles and predicts upcoming economic events with uncanny precision. I know it sounds a little crazy, but stick with me here. 

Martin Armstrong’s computer-model predictions were so correct that he attracted the attention of the FBI. To make a long story short, he spent 12 years in prison, seven years of that time he was in prison for contempt charges. Martin says the government wanted the source code of his computer program, but he wouldn’t give it to them. They accused him of manipulating world financial markets. 

Martin Armstrong’s story is being made into a documentary titled The Forecaster. HERE is the link to one trailer of the movie on YouTube. HERE is another trailer link. I'm looking forward to seeing this movie when it is finally out.

You can listen to a recent interview with Martin Armstrong At This Link.

And you can read Martin Armstrong's blog HERE. I get all Martin's blog posts by e-mail (several a day lately). I suspect that every economist in the world is reading Martin Armstrong.

Martin Armstrong's computer model has been telling him that we are in for a significant crisis event on 2015.75. That is his way of saying the 3rd quarter of this year. Specifically, on or just after, October 1, 2015. 

We will find out if The Forecaster is right on this call soon enough.

###

Martin Armstrong 

Quotes About 

Empire & Deflation

(from This Blog Post)

"Empires do not die by hyperinflation – that is reserved for the fringe. When an empire dies, it historically has ALWAYS been by deflation/stagflation. How? Real wealth is driven from the aboveground economy into the underground economy where it is hoarded and tucked away. This is why we find hoards of Roman coins. This reduces the velocity of money and commerce collapses. This is ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION how empires die."

### 

The British Empire did not die of hyperinflation. The pound collapsed in value. It did not inflate into oblivion. The British Empire simply rolled over and died. The decline of the sterling silver penny of England was no different a path than the decline and fall of Rome. The United States will follow the same path and that means there is a risk that it will break apart into regional sections ONLY AFTER the dollar is hit very hard following Europe and then Japan.

###

This is fairly simple. All the hyperinflationists can point to is Germany and Zimbabwe. They can offer not a single historical example of how hyperinflation ever destroyed any empire. I have no vested interest in hyperinflation or deflation. I simply do the research and let the evidence speak for itself. This is just not a personal opinion issue in the least. Both will lead to the same end result – the death of an empire. Why must there be an argument over such nonsense? It is DEAD from fiscal mismanagement!

###

When an empire dies that is the major reserve of all nations. We must be concerned about a complete meltdown and the breakup of the nation long-before hyperinflation would even be possible.

Elimination of Cash?

Dateline: 20 May 2015

I mentioned Martin Armstrong here awhile back. His daily commentaries continue to set him apart in the world of alternative economic analysis and commentary. I'm sure he is not entirely correct in his analysis. No economic commentator ever is. But he has such a good a good grasp of history and current events that I'm powerfully intrigued by his future predictions.

Martin Armstrong's recent essay ( a short one) on the coming elimination of cash really got my attention. I'm seeing other articles on the internet about this too.

The elimination of cash and cash transactions does not in any way, shape or form benefit the citizenry of this nation. It only benefits government and the financial institutions. Here are three reasons why (from the viewpoint of the controlling elites) cash must be eliminated ....

1. Cash allows privacy in personal financial transactions. Privacy can not to be tolerated in a surveillance police state, which is exactly what America has become.

2. The elimination of cash and cash transactions in a surveillance police state means the government will be able to extract more money through taxation.

3. Many people are, evidently, saving cash (the government calls it "hoarding"). This is a normal human response to an increasingly unstable economy and uncertain economic future. If the use of cash is eliminated, enormous amounts of cash would return to the banks or be spent (while it still has some worth). This would benefit the banking industry and the economy.

Seeing as less and less people use cash anyway these days, and cash is so often associated with illegal activities, it's not hard to see that there will be a great many Americans who will support the elimination of cash. 

I wouldn't be surprised if the specter of terrorism (and fear mongering) are somehow utilized in a government sponsored propaganda campaign to condition the population to accept the elimination of cash. 

In the final analysis, many Americans are of the mind that if a new law doesn't affect them, then it's okay. But, as Frederick Douglas so famously said: "No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."

Which brings to mind the famous quote by Pastor Martin Neimoller.

Was MathInvented or Discovered?(Fundamental Thoughts For The New Year)

Dateline: 3 January 2016

Martin Armstrong sent me an e-mail yesterday morning with a link to the YouTube video above. It's about some guys who printed the number pi on a length of paper to the millionth digit, then rolled it out on an airport runway.   From my perspective, the video is interesting, but not real interesting.

I realized many years ago (like, around 5th grade) that I'm missing the math gene. Nevertheless, I am powerfully intrigued by math and, in particular, the question of whether mathematics was invented or discovered.

Take, for example, the basic equation of 1 + 1 = 2. Did some real smart human, or group of humans, invent this concept long ago, along with other numbers and the equations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division?  

And if some real smart humans did invent basic math, did they also at the same time invent all the related branches of mathematics, like algebra, geometry, calculus and trigonometry, which are built upon and integrate perfectly with the basics of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division?

Or, on the other hand, have smart men discovered the basics of mathematics and, in time, the deeper revelations. A case in point being Pythagoras of Samos, the greek mathematician, who lived some 500 years B.C. He typically gets credit for discovering or proving (the existence or truth of) the Pythagorean Theorem. I don't think anyone asserts that Pythagoras invented his theorem.

When you discover or prove the existence of something, that something had to preexist. It was there all the time. It's kind of like the discovery of umami. Or it's like the discovery of Pluto in 1930. Or it's like the discovery of DNA's double helix in 1953. Or it's like the discovery of the tiny Microhyla nepenthicola frog in Borneo in 2010. Etcetera.

So, if math is something that preexists (as appears to be the case), where did it come from? Can something as complex, and vast, and reliable as mathematics happen all by itself? And is it just coincidence that consistent principles of math can be found throughout the natural world, as evidenced in the Fibonacci sequence? Maybe all of this evolved over millions of years by random chance and natural selection, eh? But wait, can mathematics evolve?

Well, from my perspective as a Christian, the question of where math came from (along with everything else than man has discovered, and continues to discover in our universe) is sufficiently answered for me in Genesis 1:1.... "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." 

I happily accept this because it makes perfect sense to me. It explains everything about origins and the world I live in. It relieves me of all angst and confusion about such matters. 

And I am thankful that this incredibly intelligent and all-powerful God of all creation told me this in The Book that He, through the mind and hands of a selection of his created beings, over a period of around 1,500 years, put together for my benefit (and that of all mankind). 

Right there, in the first sentence and chapter of the Bible, the matter of creation is answered. Then, from there on, God's Book reveals much more important things that I need to know. Like why I was created, what my purpose in life is, and how to have a proper relationship with God here in this earthly realm—as well as in the otherworldly realm(s) that lie beyond.

Many people scoff, of course, at those, like myself, who believe in such a book, with it's transcendent explanations and insights. How can you believe that old book? 

I can believe it because I see the evidence of this Creator God in the creation all around me. And if this Creator God, who is sovereign over all his creation (as the potter is over his clay) wanted to write a book to me, and preserve the essence of its message over the centuries... well that would be a relatively simple thing for such a God to do, wouldn't you say?

By the way, as I understand it the Bible is the only book in the world that claims to be the Word of God. That right there is a whole lot more interesting and exciting to me than the number pi printed out to the millionth decimal point.

The amazing thing to me is that so many other people do not accept this fundamental explanation of the origin of all things. This dichotomy of understanding is due to the dynamics of human presuppositions.

I learned about fundamental presuppositions several years ago when I read Gary Demar's book, Thinking Straight in a Crooked World. What Gary wrote really resonated with me.

Presuppositions are bedrock beliefs upon which an individual worldview is built. Every person develops these fundamental presuppositions in childhood and holds tight to them throughout their life. Any information contrary to the presuppositional beliefs is immediately rejected by that person as false.

Now, here's the interesting thing about every person's fundamental presuppositional beliefs... they are assumed to be true without absolute proof. 

The most fundamental of fundamental presuppositions a person can have is the matter of the existence of God, or not. Those who presuppose there is no God, presuppose this by faith. They can not empirically prove there is no God, so they must believe there is no God by faith. Make no mistake about it, atheism is a faith-based belief system.

When your fundamental presupposition is atheism, you try to make sense of the world and the purpose of your life based on your atheistic faith. You accept or reject data about the world (including the created order) based on whether or not it fits your presupposition.

Someone who has embraced the fundamental presupposition that there is no Creator God can not and will not consider the possibility that math is the transcendent creation of such an all-powerful Creator. Instead, such people will come up with all manner of other imaginative possibilities or theories 

While researching this topic, I came across This E-Mail Exchange between a high school girl (Angela) and a scientist (Dr. Math). Angela asked Dr. Math if math was created or discovered. It is abundantly clear from the exchange that Dr. Math has an atheistic presupposition. He presents all kinds of  ideas and information that help to support his worldview. But, in the end, the girl doesn't buy it...

"Upon doing more research, I discovered that I must stand on the so-called "absolutist" side of the argument. I think that mathematics is universal and certain. Mathematics is discovered by the intuition of the mathematician, and then established in a proof."

Angela's fundamental presuppositions helped her arrive at her conclusion. She has a Creator-God presupposition, whether she realizes it or not. Absolutism is founded on unchanging truth. And the only absolute source of truth is transcendent truth, which is from God.

Can fundamental presuppositions change? Yes. But they don't change easily. I think it is always something of a small miracle when a firmly-held presupposition against the existence of God changes.

I think it behoves every person to consider and understand his or her most fundamental presuppositions. And if we do believe in the existence of an omnipotent, absolutist, Creator God, as explained in the first chapter of the Bible, I think it behoves us to read what else God has in The Book.

One of the things we'll find is God's opinion of people with fundamental atheistic presuppositions (like Dr. Math)... "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalm 14)

###

The following video is a lot of fun to watch. It gets really good after the 3-minute mark. I had to laugh when the guy said math appears to be a lot less like science and more like... "the opposite of science."