Talk:Economic Confidence Model

Untitled
Armstrong is brilliant and respected among professionals as well as TA gurus. Many will resent any negative hogwash directed at him.

Yes, exactly right...and the guy attempting to get this man's work deleted has a personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.27 (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking as "the guy attempting to get this man's work deleted", I don't know anything about Martin A. Armstrong or have any particular opinions on his theory. I hadn't even heard about him until a week ago - I stumbled across this article while fixing some unhelpful additions to Contempt of Court. The (probably legitimate) controversy over whether Armstrong was unjustly held in contempt of court caused a user to feel the need to add a few paragraphs of ranting to that article, and from there I noticed that same user had added this article.
 * Feel free to clean up this article and demonstrate why it's notable. I encourage you to assume good faith and edit from a neutral point of view as you attempt to establish the notability of this theory. ArthurDenture (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Economic Confidence Model(ECM)
The ECM is the next step in Society's Evolution. Only by controlling the Cyclical activity of the Economy can humanity advance to the next level. Meditation is a Form of controlling the Amplitude of ones Brain Waves. Why not control the waves/or at least the Amplitude of the Waves of Humanity? Advance when the Cycles are up and it is Advantages retreat and Hold when the Cycle is down To delete the ECM is doing a grave injustice to Humanity. Erwinp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.103.155 (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Also, this talk page is not a place to discuss the subject itself, but the article and how to improve it - frankie (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoever is editing the main article does not understand the model, the 51.6 year cycle is NOT the long cycle, the 309 year cycle is the long cycle, if you don't believe me then go to ArmstrongEconomics.com and read the what the creator of the model wrote!!! This is the problem with Wikipedia, it is written by people that may not have much depth of understanding. I tried to correct the article and my work was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.71.19 (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The way Wikipedia works is everything is sourced to reliable secondary sources. ArmstrongEconomics.com is considered a primary source on this topic, we don't use primary sources because because it's original research. So if you made edits here in the past that were deleted, it was probably because the edits were either 1. not sourced at all or 2. not sourced to reliable secondary sources. Looking at the article I see 4 reliable secondary sources that could be referenced when writing this article: New Yorker, Time, London Financial Times, Barrons. If you want to expand the article using these as sources, go for it. Seems like there is a lot of content in those secondary sources that could be added to this article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this article is about the theory this guy Armstrong came up with. Our guy here claims that he used a primary source to reference his description of details of the model. And it's basicly an argument about hard numbers (how many days/years for one whatever cycle), so there seems to be little room for interpretation. So in this case I think it is OK to use a primary source. Just like articles about certain books or publications have those books or publications as sources - among a bunch of secondary sources of course. 84.180.69.232 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Image Copyright Violation
I have removed copyrighted images from the article. These fail our image use policy, clearly marked as copyright. See Copyright violations for further discussion on this policy. Edgepedia (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

POV tag
Added a POV tag. Parts of the article are written far too subjectively for Wikipedia. Some examples:

1. There is zero (0) criticism of the ECM discussed in the article. Are there no detractors? Has no one ever questioned it? Why, on certain key dates, did nothing happen that were predicted to happen? Is the theory effected by a certain hind-sight bias, seeing patterns where one thinks they exist, but in reality is just randomness?

2. It reads like a marketing pamphlet trying to sell the reader on an idea. "This model has shocked many", "the stunning accuracy of this model". This is POV - see WP:POV in the proper tone for writing articles on Wikipedia.

There is room for this article on Wikipedia, it meets notability requirements having been mentioned in The New Yorker, Barrons, Time Magazine and other top-tier sources. However, as written, it is out of line for how Wikipedia operates. The author(s) of this article need to play ball with how Wikipedia operates, or not be surprised if other editors try to delete it. It's not a conspiracy against the content, rather how it is presented. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK I made some major edits for POV, removing a bunch of material that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, added appropriate sourcing, and a criticism section. For anyone who believes this theory is "crank", the best way to deal with it is not AfD, but rather giving interested readers a balanced NPOV perspective - Wikipedia at its best (probably not what the original author had in mind). I may come back and fine tune stuff later but its a start for now. The Martin Armstrong article needs similar help. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism's section
The following was posted by 207.216.7.80 as a rebuttal to the criticism section. Moved here for discussion / info. Someone needs to find reliable sources for all this and trim down to a pithy 1 paragraph or something (though the "criticism" section is for criticism, not rebuttal's). Green Cardamom (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)



In rebuttal to the above information - The odds of the correlations of the model - to major financial panics or peaks and bottoms - being random are billions to one according to Martin Armstrong. The model is tuned to the world's economy as a whole, where the main focus of capital and political energy is what the model's main turn points have their focus on.

Looking at the model's major oscillations on the chart above it can be seen that: 1981 saw a huge spike in inflation with Gold hitting US$850 per ounce was predicted by Armstrong in the 1970's, that time period was also the final wave of the last 51.6 year confidence in public sector cycle (FDR's New Deal Era) leading up to the new private wave that started in 1985.65 which will end in 2037.

1985.65 (.65 of the number of days in the year) - start of the current 51.6 year private cycle - was the major turn in the British Pound/Us dollar ratio.

1987 date was the low in the US stock markets crash to the day. The model predicted the crash of 1987 to the day during which time Martin Armstrong indicated that it was not the start of the next great depression as some said, but was just the first serious panic in the emerging new private wave.

1989 cycle date was the high in the Japanese Nikkei and Martin Armstrong warned that it was going to go down 20,000 points within 10 months.

1994.25 showed the low in the SP500 to the day and the start of the dot.com mania of the 1990's.

1996 turn showed the high in the US markets at that point.

1998.55 was the high in the US stock markets to the day and led to a 20% panic sell-off and a crisis with a derivatives company which the government stepped in to save. Mr Armstrong predicted this would be a major event almost a decade before it happened! It was also the real peak in the markets as measured internally. His computer had forecast in the early 1990's that the dow would hit 6,000 by 1996 and 10,000 by 1998, the computer model had lots more in it than just the pi cycle.

1999.62 was the low in the Gold price after a 20 year bear market.2000.7 was the final high in the SP500 for the roaring 1990's bull market.

Sept.2000 saw the final high in the SP500 for the great 1990's bull market that Martin had forecast accurately a decade before. Martin predicted the markets would go sideways for 5 or 6 years after the 1990's bull market came to an end. A little more than 6 years later in early 2007 the Dow Jones made new highs.

2002.85 was the end of the bear market in the US stock exchanges, as Martin had forecast. It was also a bigger cyclical trend for rising commodity markets which Martin had forecast long before. One other thing happened on that cycle of November 8, 2002, it was the day that the UN handed down its ultimatum to Iraq to comply with its demands, not long after President George W. Bush invaded Iraq on a false charge that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, refusing to let the UN do its job of inspections, even though the UN protested. Martin had forecast that war would increase after this turning point, although he thought it would increase with China and Russia trying to hold onto past glory with their satellites. In general Armstrong thought that this part of the cycle led to increased war which was and unfortunately, is correct.

In an article he wrote in 1999 he warned that the USA would be attacked in either Sept. or Oct. of 2001 (probably based on the 224 yr. civilization cycle which is related to the Pi Cycle) and that this would then be followed by a war in response to the attack, it all came to pass unfortunately. Very strange.

2005 turn saw a low in the US dollar index with a sharp reversal to the upside.

2007.15 saw the Schiller Housing index peak, as did the Nikkei and the US Financial Indices.

June 2011 was the major low for the model. We have just seen markets panicking into early August on debt concerns with Gold spiking near $1800 per ounce. At this point in time it is not clear which sector will be the strongest going into the next major peak of 2015.75. The model does have a leeway of a few weeks for the major turns even though many turns have been down to the day.

Capitalization
User:Tony1 changed the title from "Economic Confidence Model" to "economic confidence model", however I'm pretty sure this a proper noun and thus capitalized. Before I change it back wanted to let it be known in case there was a dispute about it. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)