Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Dow - PRICE, TIME, and Pattern Recognition (Global Market Watch)

Professional Analysis vs. a Fool’s Game

The way people try to judge one analyst against another is like saying, “Oh, he is right and someone else is wrong.” That is unprofessional because OPINION is irrelevant and NO ONE can be correct all the time. It is humanly impossible to forecast the future based upon what someone “thinks” will or will not happen. As soon as anyone tries to engage in such comparisons, they reveal their own stupidity for it is a pointless exercise in nonsense. The only possible way to forecast any market is (1) by means of a quantitative model never fundamentally; and (2) such a model cannot work on a single market in isolation.
The analysis provided on this site is NOT my OPINION for absolutely NO ONE can stay on top of everything all the time to the point that they are NEVER wrong. The entire object of our model is to monitor the world and that takes observational power that is really beyond human capability. Once you begin to see the world in a connected way, your reality will change for what lies behind the curtain is complex and proof positive that while people will try to manipulate the world, it will never be tamed or broken.
The greatest part of the learning curve in utilizing our forecasting: (1) understand it is a computer monitoring the world simultaneously; (2) the model has three primary components Time, Price, and Pattern Recognition, and (3) the absence of human emotion and subjective “I think” analysis or prognostication. Analysts must yield the stark realization that they must yield to their human inability to always be right, as politicians must yield to the fact that they are the problem because of their human inability to resist power and self-interest.
Using The Models
The threshold to opening your mind to be able to trade CONSISTENTLY is to avoid subjective analysis. Comprehending that our analysis is a quantitative model and not simply personal opinion. That is the ONLY way to achieve consistency. All forecasting must be presented very black and white – IF THIS; THEN THAT; OR ELSE THAT WILL HAPPEN. This style of analysis removes human subjective judgment. Under this methodology, we allow the market to show us the correct path. Any other form of analysis is a vain attempt to judge the market based upon what you may think will happen. That cannot be consistent because the majority must always be wrong for that is the very fuel that drives the market like a pendulum going back and forth.
Each aspect of PRICE, TIME, and Pattern Recognition (Global Market Watch) is entirely independent. Therefore, we gave three levels on the Dow the 18500, 23000, and 32000/40000. When we introduce TIME, the first opportunity for a major high was 2015.75 and the three price targets would then come into play. So while the maximum objective would have been 32000/40,000 as early as 2015, we have been unable to get through the first target at 18500. Hence, if we saw a price advance to 23,000 with the TIME of the ECM (October 1, 2015), then we should expect a correction because we met both TIME and PRICE. Failing to reach that next threshold at 23,000 means the next TIME target becomes 2017. Exceeding 23,000 before TIME means you then go to the next target in PRICE, being the 32,000/40,000 area.
We identify time windows and for such targets; to form important highs or lows there MUST be the alignment of both TIME and PRICE unfolding often according to Pattern Recognition.

We use the Reversals to step in and out, letting the market guide us. So the entire object is to eliminate HUMAN emotion and judgment, which includes myself. I would sell against a Bullish Reversal based upon TIME or buy against one below also with TIME.
This is how the Reversals were situated for the 1987 Crash. We can see there was a huge gap. Breaking that PRICE target of 286.10 on the S&P 500 futures meant you then go to the next level and that was 180. The TIME was just 2 days to the ECM and that was precisely what took place.
That forecast, which became famous, was not based upon my personal opinion. It was based entirely upon this system of three separate approaches.
No, we do not use Elliot Wave or technical analysis trading patterns. Such methods are highly subject to debate and rest only upon the plain and simple observation and thus OPINION. Therefore, subjective methods of this nature are unsuitable for definitive management or trading

Sunday, June 28, 2015

June closing on cash below 11095 in the Euro will reflect GRexit.


Clarifying the Euro

IBEUUS-M 6-27-2015
It appears that a June closing on cash below 11095 in the euro will reflect Grexit. A month-end closing for June below 10520 level will be very bearish short-term. However, keep in mind that the major Bearish Reversal lies down at the 10335 level. Therefore, only a monthly closing BELOW 10335 will CONFIRM the 11500 is the extent of any rally. 
IBEUUS-W 6-26-2015
Until we see a monthly closing BELOW 10520, then it remains possible that we could still exceed the 11500 level. A monthly closing BELOW the 10335 will confirm the high is in place and will signal phase two to begin with the euro falling below the 80 cent level relative to the U.S. dollar.
The Weekly level requires a closing above 11540. We can see that the Energy Model has been positive on the weekly level, yet still negative on the monthly level. This reflects that the euro has not sufficiently broken out to the upside.
EURFOR-D 6-26-2015
Keep in mind that the dollar will rise during an economic decline. The higher the dollar, the steeper the decline. Politicians will blame external factors. They never understand how markets function because they never seem to grasp the world economy is connected. So we need a rising dollar to turn the U.S. economy down and that sets the stage for chaos into 2017.

Legal reasoning is never consistent

Supreme Court Upholds Same Sex Marriage

There is probably no other decision that could stir the fires in the Republican Party to further the SPLIT than this decision despite the fact that it is legally correct. You cannot deny Gays equal rights without surrendering your own for that is how the law really works. If you say a Black cannot vote, then that will be expanded to Jews, Catholics, Muslims or whoever is the minority for that is the primary danger of Democracy where the majority can outlaw the minority.
What this Obergefell v. Hodges decision actually stands for in reasoning should be applied uniformly to all subject matter and that means also progressive taxation is unconstitutional as well. In the 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority of the Court with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent. Yet here is the core legal opinion that is correct, which should apply to us all in every aspect to who we are from race, creed to class status making it truly illegal to tax us by socialism or Marxist idealism. Justice Kennedy wrote: “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law,” Kennedy continued: “The Constitution grants them that right.”
Legally there is no difference from blaming the decay of social morals on Gays as distinguished from the Rich. Saying that your taxes have risen because the “rich do not pay their fair share” is equally discrimination if you replace the world “rich” with Gays, Jews, Blacks, Women, Muslims, Atheists, welfare recipients, or White Males over 18. It is all the same under what is supposed to be “law”.
BureacratsObergefell v. Hodges upholding Gay Rights is indeed a monumental decision that will go down in history with Brown v. Board of Education, and Roe v. Wadewhich NPRreported. However, I would add to this collage of decisions GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT, 381 US 479 (1965) which upheld the Right to Privacy, which seems to be ignored by everyone from Congress and FATCA, NSA to Google. The Griswold case was over outlawing married couples from effectively using condoms under the religious belief that God said go forth an propagate so preventing pregnancy was wrong. The approach was the same as FATCA, where they could not direct the law at married persons, so they directed it at selling or giving them a condom.FATCA requires foreign institution to report any American or suffer their assets will be confiscated in the USA. The question in Griswold would become, how can you enforce such a law? Do you then require a permit to have sex and someone must come in the bedroom from the government to inspect before insertion? Sounds like even more pervert would be working for government.
Legal reasoning is never consistent and it would be far better to have a computer become the Virtual Supreme Court. For example, in PERRY v. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 330 (1935), the issue was a US Treasury Bond was sold in 1917 when gold was money, was it legal for Congress retroactively to change the terms removing payable in gold nearly 20 years later? There the court held the bond still paid you in dollars which were legal tender and any other argument would be  “not a recoupment of loss in any proper sense, but an unjustified enrichment.” Hence, they held Perry could not even state a claim worthy to file a case.
The Supreme Court far too often rules in the favor of government. The Court upheld disproportionate application of income tax in BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)How can you discriminate against someone who works and one that does not to justify disproportionate percentage of income taxes?
From a cyclical perspective, this decision comes curiously 43 years after the formation of the Gay Rights Movement precisely in line with the Pi Frequency. Nearly 46 years to the day after a riot at New York’s Stonewall Inn which sparked the issue, within 3.14 years of that event the Gay Rights movement was organized and began. This decision could settle one of the major civil rights fights of this era, but it should apply to civil rights even in taxation. The language of Kennedy’s opinion spoke eloquently of the most fundamental values of family, love and liberty, but it is not limited to just that area.
Kennedy Justice“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right,” Kennedy wrote. He was joined in the ruling by the court’s liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
What Justice Kennedy is saying has nothing to do with religion. This is the legal right to inherit property if two people lived together or one is in a coma and the other has no legal standing to even be in the room. These are the “legal” rights that are attached to a civil marriage, which requires a license because it is a tax.
Once the state requires a marriage license, even to get married in the Eyes of God in a church, it ceases to be a religious right and enters the realm of civil rights that require a license. The religious people who are against Gay Marriage are barking up the wrong tree. Why does the government have the right to charge a tax to get married? This comes from the King’s right to sleep with the bride on the night of her wedding called Prima Noctum. There is no account that he ever exercised that right in England, but the ledgers are full of “fees” being paid to relieve the king of that right and this fee, with time, became the marriage contract.
So if you do not pay the fee today, you have NO RIGHT to be married anywhere including a church or in the Eyes of God unless the government is paid. In this context, this is what a right to marry is all about and you should not confuse this with religion to begin with. This is a right for the government to simply charge a licence fee – not religion.
Roberts Justice
Chief Justice Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve States’ rights over what he viewed as following the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.” He further wrote: “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal,” he wrote. “Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
Roberts wrote further :
“Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law.”
Justice Robert is being a bullshit artist here. Once the government charges a fee for marriage then this is no longer a religious right to get married. The government legally can deny that license to anyone so there could be no legal marriage even in a church.
Roberts is selectively arguing for State Rights on this issue, yet upholds Federal superiority on just about every other issue. He ignores Equal Protection of the Law and upholds progressive taxation. It was Roberts who virtually unilaterally upheld Obamacare the first time arguing it was a tax. He effective jumps back and forth and stands only for bigger government. Progressive taxation also violates Equal Protection and State Rights. His inconsistent rulings are an abomination. Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas joined him in his dissent.
Roberts disparaged the majority decision of Kennedy by saying that it was nothing more than a flimsy argument.

“Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society,” Roberts wrote. “If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.”
The Due Process Clause does not consider what is good for society. That is not a legal position that has EVER been taken. I was denied Due Process of Law saying civil contempt is not criminal so I had no right to lawyers or a trial. Where is that “good” for society? It was a precise complaint in the Declaration of Independence.
Roberts’s other dispute is that many of the arguments made in support of gay marriage could be used to also support plural marriage.
“If not having the opportunity to marry ‘serves to disrespect and subordinate’ gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same ‘imposition of this disability,’ … serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?” he writes. “I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any.”

Having more than one wife has been part of different religions. Indeed, if one’s brother died, it was a moral obligation to marry your sister-in-law even as a second wife. This was not about sex, it was about fulfilling the marriage contract to ensure she and her children would be taken care of. One of the most misunderstood directions of Christ from the Cross is “Woman, behold your son. Son Behold your mother.” (John 19:26–27). This is a reflection of social obligation that he is to take care of his mother as the obligation of a son. It is not that he had a brother. If he was his biological brother there would be no point to saying such a thing. This was all about the obligation of family members in ancient timesBEFORE socialism. Once had children who took care of their parents in old age. That is the bond that socialism has undermined.
ScaliaJustice Antonin Scalia, who is normally judicially honest and has gone against the government many times based upon historical precedent as in Crawford v US – 541 US 36 (2004), this time he seems to show personal bias calling the decision “judicial Putsch.” He claims this is not a case the Supreme Court should decide, which Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in this dissent.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”
Scalia stated he wanted to write a separate dissent “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”  He attacked his colleagues’ opinion writing: “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.” He further wrote: “One would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.”
True, Scalia points out that this is not a law that forbids same-sex intimacy. It was Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), where the United States Supreme Court decision upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexuals. The Bowers decision was overruled by Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) which was a landmark decision in the 6–3 ruling where the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory.
Given the fact that both Bowers and the Lawrence decisions were delivered by the Supreme Court, it is hard to buy the argument that this somehow was a case that defeated Democracy and should have remained in the states. The precedents up to now show this has been an issue the Supreme Court has dealt with directly before.
YOU CANNOT DENY ANY GROUP EQUAL RIGHTS WITHOUT THREATENING YOUR OWN ONE DAY. What if Muslims become the majority? They could then make it a criminal act not to have 4 wives. Religion does not belong in law. It is way too threatening and it defeats the entire right of Freedom of Religion which has to include the freedom from religion as well or nothing works.

Entire cold war going into 2017


Lafontaine Oskar

Oskar Lafontaine has been a major political figure in German politics since the mid-70s. He was even chairman of the SPD (one of Germany’s two main parties) for four years, the SPD’s candidate for chancellor in 1990, minister of finance for two years, and then chairman of the Left party in the 2000s. He has called the US for its anti-Russian policies that has reignited the cold war and seriously harmed the European economy.

Nutland Victoria

The notorious US Diplomat Victoria Nuland became famous when she was caught on a telephone recording. Her language and diplomatic skills have long been questionable. She has displayed more of a nasty superiority attitude than one would assume is proper for a diplomat. Now Lafontaine has put it as blunt as it can be.

Meanwhile, the US is sending tanks and weapons to Eastern Europe. This is clearly escalating the entire cold war going into 2017.

September high for the Euro is still possible since July is a Directional Change

Playing the Reversals

EUFOR-M 6-27-2015

Hello Martin. some weeks ago you said the Euro has to break through the 1,15 Level to test at the very best the 1,20 . Is this over now and confirmed that the 1,14 / 1,15 was the top ?
Best regards

ANSWER: It appears that is the case. The way to gauge this is TIME v PRICE. You have turning points and price targets. May was a critical target and that is the high so far. Then we had June/July followed by September.

The way to use the model is the merger of Reversals and TIME. We could not exceed that threshold of 115. Exceeding that high will not be possible only if we close below 103.35 level on a monthly basis. The numbers define the price level, but they must be achieved within a specified time target.

A September high for the Euro is still possible since July is a Directional Change. We could see the initial sharp drop creating the low from which new Weekly Bullish Reversals will be generated. We then watch to see if they are exceeded and if so we can still end up with a September high and then the crash.

I simply step in and step out. Sell against the 115 reversal and we know where your are right and wrong. Let the market decide and if exceeded then look for the 120. If not, you sold the high at 115.
I play the Reversals as key definitive targets where the market speaks to me rather than me trying to dictate what I “think” the market should do. ANTICIPATION plays the major role so this is why fundamentals lose money.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Between the early 1960s to 1982- From the international perspective, the US share market rose. look at the Dow in Swiss francs, you see the rally

The Dow & Rising Interest Rates

COMMENT: Between the early 1960s to 1982 the Dow was basing with an overhead resistance of approx. 1000. The prime interest rates during those 20 years varied from 5% to a high of 21.50% in 1980. In 1982, the Dow broke out. In eight years, the Dow increased ten fold while interest rates were declining. Then, the Dow resumed basing for ten years. Can you reconcile your statement that booms unfold with rising  interest rates with what happened during the period of 1982 to 2000? Rates did rise from 1975 to 1980. Did that rise unfold the 1982-2000 boom?

REPLY: Your perspective is seriously flawed. The market based in dollar terms only. It did not crash with rising interest rates. From the international perspective, the US share market rose, it did not crash. When you look at the Dow in Swiss francs, you see the rally which is why there was no meltdown despite rising rates. Even the sharp correct into 1974 was mitigated by the rise in the dollar. You review is one-dimensional and that is what prevents you from seeing reality.
Your dates are seriously off. You ignore the fact that rates rose from the 1960 low into 1966 which was the first major high at 1000. Rates nearly doubled from 1960 into the second high 1968. Your very broad assessment is highly misleading.
The peak in rates was 1981 not 1982, and the low 1986. The breakout began when the ECM shifted from Public to Private in 1985. Rates began to rise from that point and the market exploded. Your analysis is questionable at the very best.
DJIA Earn-Book 1937-1982

The breakout in the Dow came with the turn in the ECM major wave starting in 1985. That was the beginning of the Takeover Boom for price relative to book value reached historic lows by the end of the Public Wave.

UBCBT-Y 6-24-2015

The low on the 30 year bond (high in rates) was 1981 and the peak (low in rates) was 2012 – 31.4 years. That ended the peak in government and we have seen the 10 year crash this May and the short-end will be October. The Dow turned up with the ECM in 2011 and we warned it would make new highs. Barron’s even reported that forecast. Yet long rates have moved up and the 30 year bonds peaked starting their decline (rates rising) as the market rally to new highs.


The problem with your attempt to argue reveals your one-dimensional perspective and glossing over critical correlations and ignoring the complexity of the currency. The world economy is not as simple as traditional economists portray or the talking heads on TV. You must realize that both are the world’s worst analysts. It is like Einstein says. You cannot solve the problem with the very same line of thinking that has created it. This is WHY the majority must always be WRONG. They are the FUEL that propel the swing into the opposite direction.
So no problem. We always need someone on the opposite side to trade against. That is what makes it all work. Rising rates are a reflection of inflation for if they are not greater than inflation nobody will lend. You will see the negative rates now become the new peak in short-term and rates will then rise with inflation and so will share prices. With a rising dollar, foreign investors will be pouring into the States just as they did into Japan between 1987 and 1989.

Break-up of the United States in the decades ahead ?!

Europe’s Lack of Integration v USA Discrimination

There is little doubt that Europe is moving into what Jefferson described as the third phase of government: Force. The federalization of Europe is now the number one agenda to project the jobs in Brussels. There is no such thing as “European”. If you ask anyone in Europe what they are, they will NEVER respond “European”. Instead they will say German, French, Dutch, Italian etc.
What made the United States work was more than a single currency – it was a single language. The key was DISCRIMINATION, which was always very fair; whoever was the last off the boat was discriminated against. That forced each group to speak English to get a job and blend in. As that developed, today ask an American what they are and you will get half German and half Irish etc. You will get only such an odd mix in Europe, so no matter what Brussels does by force, the language divide will remain.
Europeans do not see themselves as Europeans; they see themselves as separate distinct ethnic groups. We even see divisions in the Jewish community. Jewish ethnic divisions refers to a number of distinctive communities within the world’s ethnically Jewish population. Although considered one single self-identifying ethnicity, there are distinctive ethnic divisions among Jews, most of which are primarily the result of geographic branching from an originating Israelite population, mixing with local populations, and subsequent independent evolution. Sephardi Jews, the Jews of North Africa, Spain, and Portugal, are traditionally very distinct and it is generally considered that they will not marry another Jew who is from a different branch.
After the latest shooting in a black church, the media began to call for the removal of the Confederate flag. They are asking presidential candidates if they are in favor of the flag, trying to paint them as a racist if they refuse to ban it. People are rushing out to buy the flags now in the South because stores are pulling them and are refusing to sell them. This is strangely raising the distinction once again that had faded. Not that it is racist support, but an identity. This is the beginning of a rise in distinction once again, which will ultimately lead to the break-up of the United States in the decades ahead.
The attempt of Brussels to create Europeans by sheer force will fail. People inherently cherish their roots and if you try to eliminate that by force, you will fail. The incident of the Confederate Flag will historically reignite the trend toward separation. Despite speaking the common language, we will see resentment rise both in Europe and the United States as the economy turns down.