Segundo o Martin Armstrong o mercado começa a desmontar a partir do dia 19 ou 20 de abril de 2009.

Previsões falham. Mas vale o alerta de quem nunca errou.

Exibições: 70

Responder esta

Respostas a este tópico

A discussão sobre previsão baseadas em modelos e o mundo real continua.

Originally Posted by bart View Post
The next peak per my understanding and calculations is approx. April 19, 2009.
I think Martin Amstrong calculates 2009.3 as April 23 as detailed here, but this is the business confidence model. That doesn't mean the Dow or S&P will necessarily have a sharp turn smack on April 23, 2009 at 12:00 pm. The precision of this date is necessary to calculate the next cycles.

Anyway it seems we have a new release in html format:
http://www.contrahour.com/contrahour...e-economy.html

This one I find very interesting and raising challenging questions at least with respect to one issue:
Quote:
Whatever I am like, no one can manipulate the world economy - not even the Government or all of them together. At the very best, if everyone followed the model, one of two possibilities emerges. (1) The amplitude may be increased, or (2) the wild amplitude could be reduced.
[...]
The driving force behind the business cycle is what we call the bullish/bearish consensus. In other words, the majority must be wrong. Why? The fuel behind the cycle is the imbalance in supply and demand. There is no equilibrium, any more than there is an Easter bunny laying chocolate eggs in your garden. If there was the utopian idea of equilibrium in reality, we would be in the dark ages. No nation would become rich for it would be impossible for one nation to gather greater wealth than another.
The cycle requires that the majority is always wrong because that is the fuel that then makes it work. With every stock market crash, government tries to find the culprit who overpowered the market and forced it down. Shorts are attacked as if they were sane sort of traitor. Short selling was even declared a criminal act with the 1907 Crash.

[...]
But it is never the short sellers that cause a decline. A major decline only occurs when the majority are all on one side. If you reach the point that 85-95% of investors are bullish, you have sucked in the last guy. All you need is to spook that herd, and it will turn and run collectively. When you scare the majority, you have 85-95% sellers and no buyers. Never will you find that many shorts at the high. Those who sell the high against a bullish consensus of 85% - 95%, are a slim minority
[...]The dark side of the business cycle is the perpetual loss of civil rights. With every crisis, we lose more and more of our freedom, no different than it was in the primitive ancient times. The reason for this is quite simple. If you do not under¬stand how and why the business cycle works, then individuals can be misled easily into a witch-hunt to grab someone and punish them. When Rome burned, Nero (54-68AD) blamed the Christians starting the Persecutions that lasted until Constantine. But after Constantine, the Christians got even and Persecuted pagans under the same principle of being a non-believer called "heresy" punishable by death. Virgins were sacrificed to the gods to make crops prosperous or to volcanoes to quiet their spirits. We may believe we are modern, but we act the same way as countless generations before us.
There is some quite powerful stuff here.

And another set of interesting questions:

Quote:
Why the Government as a whole does not fund the construction of a model for managing our social-economic world remains a mystery. But why the Executive branch seems to go out of its way to prevent any models from being created is even stranger. At hearings before the House Oversight Committee, a very interesting exchange took place, illustrating how the SEC for one deliberately obstructs technological advancements regarding the managing of our economy and nation.
When the SEC Chairman Cox was called before Congressman Waxman’s Oversight Committee, he was asked about models and remarkably gave the precise and very clear definition of the core structure of the model I devoted my life to create. He stated precisely the broad scope of what was necessary. Mr. Cox pointed out that the model would have to incorporate all economies and map the complexity of the global economy.

"With respect to modeling all of the risk in the system, I suppose at some point you run up against the problem of trying to create such a level of exactitude that you rebuild the whole world in all of its complexity. That is probably an aspiration that we ought not to have."
If we think a little bit, in the early agrarian societies, a small group of high priests of the solar cults figured out the cycles of the seasons, and they were the only ones able to predict with extraordinary precision when is the best time for planting the seeds.

The high priests could not influence the succession of the seasons, neither if there was a drought next year or a very long winter. The only source of their power was their ability to predict the best timing for the maximum probability of success for an agricultural enterprise. And in early neolithic agriculture was the economic engine and source of power of all early human societies.

The power of those high priests of the solar cults was awesome (and we see Europe littered with megalithic monuments that were designed to measure solstices or equinoxes dates) and it could stay in their hands only as long as the knowledge on how to determine precisely the calendar remained only in the hands of the priesthood elite.

Knowledge is power and restricting access to knowledge is equivalent to restricting access to power...

I can imagine the high priests of the early neolithic being quite upset when a pesky peasant called Martinus Amstrongus, by simply studying the cyclical evolution of temperature and the blooming date of flowers figured out that there are exactly 365.24 days and the vernal equinox allways falls on or about March 21 (91.2 days after the winter solstice) without having to build a megalithic solar observatory.

It the same pesky peasant started talking with other peasants about his model, the plebes would figure soon that the source of power of the priesthood elites has nothing to do with magice and is nothing else than simple knowlege about natural phenomena. The pesky peasant could not be allowed to become a Prometheus, and tell to the rest of the plebes how can they determine for themselves the best time for planting crops and harvesting. Nobody would pay they dues to the Temple if that happened.

These days looking at how the Wall Street Temple works and how we all have to pay our dues to the elite of financial high priests, I don't find it surprising that guys like Kondratieff and Amstrong ended up in jail.
Reply With Quote
====================================


http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...92487#poststop

He is in the "expert systems can solve everything" camp that I thought had gradually died out after the first AI intoxication. (Ever read a book called "The Art of Prolog"?) But I would agree with him that expert systems can be very usefull, just please! do not put one in charge of guvm'nt.



Have you ever heard of the World Model of System Dynamics (Limits to Growth, Club of Rome), or expert systems which are usually considered a part of AI, or business process simulation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth


Ventana has a free software version with several models, quite interesting to run:

http://www.vensim.com/resource.html

"An interesting and controversial work, World Dynamics by Jay W. Forrester (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1971; second edition, 1973) discusses growth in a finite world. This model is supplied with Vensim. "
Caro Alexandre,que tal trocarmos umas ideias em portugues,claro e transparente,e admitirmos que apesar dos problemas,e do reacionarismo da maioria da elite e do PIG,o governo brasileiro está pacientemente vencendo a crise,e apesar da ironia da manchete do forum " Vai começar o show"que parece ter sido escrito,na intenção de "esporar" o programa habitacional do governo federal este programa,está sendo ativado e dando as respostas esperadas,até antes do tempo previsto.
E esta nova audácia de querer financiar a fundo perdido,a aquisição de 10 milhões de refrigeradores,para substituir àqueles aparelhos ora usados pelos mais pobres,que alem de estarem consumindo energia em demasia,não estão respondendo às necessidades dos seus usuários.
Este novo programa,assim como o programa de "um milhão de casas populares" vem de encontro a duas necessidades emergenciais: a diminuiçao do déficit habitacional,e a substituição de refrigeradores obsoletos e vilões de energia,e ao mesmo tempo,crinado milhares de novos empregos,tanto na construção civil e na venda de material de construção,como no setor de linha branca,que terá sua produção alavancada,pela maior procura de seus ítens e pela diminuição dos impostos(jé em vigor)que nos seus primeiros dias superou a espectativa do governo,pela procura por estes ítens,nas lojas.
Covenhamos meu caro! isto não é sonho,é realidade !
Caro Rai, partilho contigo que os programas para beneficiar os que menos tem são mais do que bem vindos. O Governo do presidente Lula, por sinal meu voto na última eleição, têm feito mais pelos mais necessitados do que todos os outros juntos.

Agora, o que aconteceu no mercado financeiro não tem nada a ver com a política interna do País e na minha opinião, pouco podemos fazer para minimizar os estragos que a fraude generalizada vem produzindo e continuará a produzir.

As medidas para se minimizar o que pode vir a ser uma grande tragédia econômica, colocando a perder anos de sacrifícios de brasileiros e brasileiras, segundo o meu modo de ver , estão sendo olvidadas e substituídas por medidas de efeito instantâneo mas de pouco alcance no longo prazo. É uma questão de gerenciamento, onde , na minha modesta opinião, o importante é navegar com o olho nos espaços à frente, de modo a poder continuar o percurso na espera de águas mais favoráveis.

O problema real da crise é a a moeda de troca internacional que será o padrão, decisão recôndita e difícil, que o Brasil têm pouca influência, na minha opinião.
Alexandre, concordo com você que o Brasil ainda está a anos-luz,da condição de interveniente nas decisões que dizem respeito às decisões economicas globais.
Entretanto a nossa lição de casa,foi tão bem feita,nesta travessia da crise,que passamos a ser olhados com outros olhos,nas reuniões de líderes das Comunidades,e vistos e ouvidos, diferentemente do que ocorria no governos anteriores,concorda ?
Não é um bom comêço ?
O enfrentamento da crise com todas as formas possíveis de foco ao desenvolvimento interno,e com as contas internas e externas em dia,e com a vontade política de investir na infra-estrutura e na criação de um plano de ação voltado ao pleno desenvlvimento da criação de empregos,subsidiando(ou desonerando)as empresas que gerem tais empregos,estamos saindo antes dos demais,na frente e capacitados para dar a volta por cima.

RSS

Publicidade

© 2019   Criado por Luis Nassif.   Ativado por

Badges  |  Relatar um incidente  |  Termos de serviço