muses of the moment

July 24, 2011

Latest Letter from Martin Armstrong dated July 22, 2011

Click here for the latest letter from Martin Armstrong entitled The Sovereign Debt Crisis dated July 22, 2011 (6 pages).

It is not pretty, but then again, you probably already knew that.

3 Comments »

  1. GG,

    He has another brief 2-page “Answers to your Questions” at: http://www.martinarmstrong.org/files/No%20Educated%20Forex%20Experts%2007-24-2011.pdf

    -Lemming

    Comment by Lemming — July 25, 2011 @ 10:20 am

  2. Louis,

    The reason that Mr. Armstrong is critical of other economic theories is because they all fall short of including the massive moves in capital that currently influence the global currency (and debt) system. Groovygirl believes that Mr. Armstrong is using historical economic systems and situations to illustrate certain points as a reference, for our understanding, not as an illustration of his complete theory. Perhaps, you are viewing that way of teaching as “cherry-picking”.

    In addition, Mr. Armstrong has shifted slightly, as well he should, from “should have, would have or could have” to real solutions for the real problems we have right now. We are past the point of should have, and I think that is the basis of his opinion regarding the gold-backed currency. Groovygirl tends to agree. In our current situation with the large extent of global debt, returning to only a gold-backed currency would be harmful. It would only solve the problem of the extension of future debt (there would not be any). And the mountain of global debt we have right now is the problem. The “should have” should have been addressed in 1971 (or much earlier), we are well past that.

    Groovygirl is trying to get her mind around Martin’s theories. They are from a very different perspective. Groovygirl likens them to Copernicus announcing that the sun is the center of the solar system, not Earth. When presented with that theory, many rejected it (apart from the Vatican’s pursuit of the political status quo) because they thought that it meant that everything they understood about the earth was false and wrong. That was true for only a small portion of the known facts. The sun theory actually explained the observations and experiences on Earth better than the Earth theory, once you got past the shock of outrageousness.

    So, groovygirl is assuming that Mr. Armstrong has a better economic model, from a different perspective, that will address the current global dilemmas. I do not understand it completely, but I look at his writings with this in mind, first, and skepticism second.

    (In addition, being a student of history, gg knows that all history is rewritten in every generation to highlight the dilemmas of that generation, not necessarily the historical generation. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is not really the true study of historical theory, it is an experiment to explain current circumstances and/or possibilities. In order to really understand history, we must leave our point in time and all the culture and values attached to it and view history in the context of the culture, language, government, and religion of the time, or repeat the mistakes of the past. History, especially historical theory, should be read in the first hand account of every person in their own language with a broad study of their art, values, government, religion, morality and view of historical events.)

    Regarding the lack of “a good case for his beliefs”, I believe that the man would have to write a complete dissertation of the history of all economic theory in order to do that. He doesn’t have the time or space in his letters. I think he is more concerned to get out the message and warnings first. Perhaps his upcoming book will be more extensive.

    Thank you for your comments. I appreciate all your opinions, Louis, but I wanted to express the way I view these concerns at the moment. gg may change her mind, but for now, this is how she is approaching Mr. Armstrong’s letters, until she learns more.

    gg

    Comment by totallygroovygirlfriday — July 25, 2011 @ 4:36 pm

  3. Louis,

    Thank you again for your thoughts. I am not the one to argue Martin’s case because I do not completely understand all his theories. I am interesting in learning more.

    gg

    Comment by totallygroovygirlfriday — July 27, 2011 @ 3:05 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: