This is Martin Armstrong's life's work apparently, these are the models that he used to out-trade Goldman Sachs at his hedge fund in the 90s (before the Feds threw him in prison).
Pretty interesting DESU senpai, it took me awhile to understand what I was looking at though.
Forecast array, how to read them:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/the-princeton-models-and-methodologies-a-users-guide/how-to-use-the-forecasting-arrays/
How to read reversal system:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/the-princeton-models-and-methodologies-a-users-guide/how-to-use-3/
www.ask-socrates.com
www.armstrongeconomics.com
A 90's model is useless and especially because goldman has known about it for decades.
Looks pretty interesting, desu. Bookmarked it, so I can check it out when I get home.
>>1267115
It doesn't work like that, his economic models are derived out of a study of natural law. He's figured out why business/market cycles exist, human activity manifests as a waveform because we are as much a part of this universe as everything else. He's figured out how to measure the business cycle.
The laws of physics don't change over the time (assuming we truly understand them) do they?
>>1267131
It doesn't work like that. Business actions by humans are based on emotions. That inherently means they are not perfectly predictable.
>>1267136
Actually the fact that humans are prone to emotion-based decision making is key to understanding why his models make sense.
>>1267131
Everything you're saying spits in the face of EMH. Maybe this model worked when he was the only one who knew about it, but now that it's out in the open, it's useless.
>>1267141
Even if almost every single trader on the planet started using his models (which would never happen), it would only smooth out the cycle not completely eliminate it. There would always be a difference in the level of understanding different traders have of his models, and their ability to read them.
>>1267141
>spits in the face of EMH
you mean like all other real world occurrences and events? Take your memetheory back to econ class
>>1267155
Yeah. The reason economists don't want to believe markets are predictable, is it would mean it's not random, and thus there would be no need to pay for ivory tower public sector economists with tax money.
Politicians don't like the idea that they can't control things, and that bias creates a feedback loop in the academic community and the field of economics itself.
