The Martin Armstrong Lie Detector

I have proven beyond any doubt that Martin Armstrong is a Master of the Lie, a Professional Liar and Trickster.

Here I provide a simple method of quantifying the lying of Martin Armstrong, in other words how often he lies. For this I need to first define what a Martin Armstrong lie actually is.

Since Martin Armstrong likes to be seen as a forecaster, I inspect the success vs failure of  forecasts for my definition.

One can imagine that a successful forecast would be described with words like "as forecast by Socrates".

How about an unsuccessful forecast? Here it gets tricky because I have found that Martin Armstrong never admits forecast failure. Never. But Armstrong is greedy, and that is his weakness. He actually claims success even in case of failure, more or less. That's how I get it. please look at an example:

In December 2019 Martin Armstrong said the Fed lost control of interest rates and can't lower them as follows (this is effectively the forecast):

Why the Fed Stopped Lowering Short-term Rates

Why the Fed Is Not Lowering Rates

And here is the failure: Now the Fed is lowering rates!

Fed Cuts Rate on Schedule

What's "on Schedule"? What Schedule? Nothing more than than a trick to create the illusion that he previously somehow forecast it. So here you have a definition of a failure criterion: "on Schedule". It means (I am making this up):

Another forecast down the drain. I can't really say I predicted the event because I didn't. The market moved in the opposite direction of my forecast.

But I want you to think that I predicted the outcome anyway.

So that you can buy my expensive reports with confidence.

"on Schedule" in Martin Armstrong's terminology means failed forecast or no forecast. Otherwise he would surely say "as forecasted by Socrates".

So now let's get real and search google for his failed forecasts (click on link to test):

"on schedule" site:armstrongeconomics.com

 

About 1,160 results (0.34 seconds)

Where is the Google Web Site Lie Detector? C'mon Google, I mean we can already do it in 0.34 seconds ...

See also:

Major failed Predictions