Le Pen Vows: “Nothing Can Stop Us”
Marine Le Pen and her Front National (FN) Party did not win the Sunday elections. She replied:“Nothing can stop us.” Indeed, the cyclical trend in politics will turn ever more nationalistic as the EU continues to crumble from within. Le Pen will grow in force as the perception of a complete system failure by Brussels in every possible direction materializes. Politicians will NEVER admit a mistake. All they will ever do is become more DRACONIAN and attempt to force their desired outcome upon the world. That applies to Brussels, Washington, and every other country.
The only politicians in Europe who are critical of the EU are all on the extreme right and this is the direct result of the failed policies of Brussels. The entire spectrum of politics is completely wrong. We heard Hollande reply to Le Pen that the idea of Brussels was indeed to federalize Europe to prevent war between France and Germany. They ignore the fact that in attempting to force a political union, they surrendered their sovereignty and culture to a one European government that cannot possibly work. Economic integration prevents war, but forcing policies upon the rest of Europe to conform to the ideas of one is insane and dangerous, besides the fact it is totally unnecessary.
Subjective Analysis
QUESTION: Marty, it has become obvious that the analysts who try to attack you personally are the very people who hurt so many for they forecast only on opinion. They are often wrong and never see the big picture. One even claimed to have read all your transcripts and said you committed fraud yet could not explain anything no less why the bank paid back everyone and you owed nothing. When they have nothing to defend their analysis, they attack the messenger.
How did your eyes open to see the the whole rather than a tiny part? It seems the Elliott Wave and Goldbugs are in the same camp. They cannot see what they do not understand. The Elliot Wave seem biased and the Goldbugs just repeat the same nonsense for decades.
DK
ANSWER: Any attempt to forecast based upon “I think” will never be 100% correct. That is impossible. Opinion is not consistent because we are all human. What opened my eyes was having clients from around the world and having to provide forecasting based upon their currency perspective. The same forecast for one person based on the dollar will be wrong for someone based in euro, C$, A$, yen, or renminbi. No matter what method of analysis they use, anything that is purely SUBJECTIVE fails. You cannot assume that the world will respond based upon what you see in your own currency.
The fact that these analysts try to attack me personally demonstrates that they are not capable of seeing the whole. You are correct. When you cannot argue method, you attack the messenger, which demonstrates your own inability to forecast. Our major clients always ask, “WHAT DOES THE COMPUTER SAY?” They are not asking for my personal opinion and there is a huge difference. Some of the best forecasts I had to deliver were the very ones I myself thought were nuts. Over the years, I learned that when the computer has to be correct when it makes me think that way.
You are correct: it was the bank that paid back what was stolen.
After the bank paid back what it took, they kept me in prison on contempt with no criminal complaint or any description of a crime. They claimed there were losses before Republic, yet nothing was ever articulated. I got into the Supreme Court because there was no description of even an order to be held in contempt. They had to release me for there was nothing describing any wrongdoing.
So in the end, this was all bullshit. I was never charged for anything nor was Prudential. There were no losses; they just made that up to keep me in prison. Had I not made it to the Supreme Court, they never would have released me. That is how corrupt the government has become in the hands of the New York bankers. So, anyone claiming they read the transcripts is just a liar. What does that say about their analysis?
My Cyclical Approach
QUESTION:
Marty,
I just watched ‘The Forecaster’ on demand, I just wanted to say it was an exceptional movie. I really enjoyed seeing your story played out, and following your journey to the discovery of pi in economic cycles.
As an avid trader myself, although not nearly as successful as you [yet, hopefully!], I’m always looking to refine my process. I can’t help but be reminded of W.D. Gann when I read your blog, or when I study the ECM. Is/Was Gann ever a major influence on you/your work? What are your thoughts on him?
My other question pertains to the secular shift from public to private confidence in the ECM. Where do commodities fit in here? Would they be considered part of the private sector? I know we are in a secular-deflationary trend, although that would seem to be nearing an end in the next couple years. Any response is greatly appreciated.
Best Regards,
GD
ANSWER: No, I never read Gann. This is the clip that inspired me to study cycles. My history teacher showed it to me in the 9th grade – the Toast of New York. It was about the Panic of 1869 and Jim Fisk’s attempt to corner the gold market where he said gold was $162. I went to the library and looked in the NY Times. It was true. That shocked me into realizing that here was gold at $162 in 1869 yet $35 when I was in school. Obviously the world was not a straight line. There was some sort of cycle at work. That was my inspiration.
Nevertheless, anyone who wants to become a trader must learn the ways of the market. Only a fool argues the market is wrong since the market is ALWAYS right. Fools who pretend that they are right and the market is wrong or manipulated have never studied markets and are no different from politicians who also never admit that they are wrong. Even manipulations take place with the cycle as was the case with Jim Fisk.
Anyone who has become a REAL TRADER observes how markets move and articulate that movement perhaps differently, but nonetheless, there are always similarities. If you have NEVER traded markets, it is impossible to forecast them or even comprehend their movements.
In my case, I was interested in physics. A major mining company board ORDERED its finance director to meet with me. When we met, he admitted he knew of our track record and said that could be just luck or coincidence. When I asked him what was his background, his voice lowered and he said, “Nuclear physics.” I replied, “Let’s look at the market through the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” His mouth dropped and he said, “OMG, there has to be a cycle!” To which I replied, “You got it.”
My focus was physics. Anyone who has studied cycles will express some similarity. But my approach has been concentrated on different types of complex wave motions that often collide and will combine creating Rogue Waves – i.e. 1929, 1987, 1989, 1998, 2000, 2007 etc..
It was also economics from the standpoint of the business cycle. I would have to say the first theory I had heard of was Kondratieff’s theory. I observed the cycle first hand with the Crash of 1966. That led me to explore the idea of a business cycle.
I ALWAYS credit the theories of others. This is how we learn. We build upon the shoulders of those who have gone before us. I have not read Gann. After I get finished with my books next year, perhaps I will find the time. I respect that he actually traded. That makes him at least worthwhile. Otherwise, it becomes like reading a book written by a man on how it “feels” to go through childbirth. You cannot possibly know ANYTHING, including manipulations, without first hand knowledge in trading. Those who create fictional all-powerful manipulations to explain why a market has not done what they expected, are ignorant of even how markets perform and there is a time and place for everything. If manipulations were successful systemically, then we would never have revolutions nor would the world economy be collapsing right now. It is all relative.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclical process, the entropy will either increase or remain the same.
Entropy: a measure of the amount of energy that is unavailable to do work.
No comments:
Post a Comment