One of the best, most intelligent and meaningful posts Iv'e read. How refreshing! Why do you think Jackson had this statement put on his tombstone: "I beat the banks"? The only news in the world is the history we don't know. Winners write history even though the losers may have been morally correct and acted in the best interest of economic justice. A bit off topic but here's some additional perspective.
The following motto is still relevant: too big to fail equals too big to jail". The banks still commit collective crimes against humanity, and the corruption slides downhill.
No need to get excited about an extended move higher over a longer period of time? 1345 just mirrors the technical move up in 1999: before returning back down to major support.
Nick Elway wrote: Robert Anton Wilson said a clever numerologist can make any numbers you give them appear significant. Perhaps the cycle guys can give us an end date for the FED?
I am only a fan of numerology when the numbers is related to Mr Fibonacci's sequence. Ok, google-time: "negatively, number 9 relates to disconnection". From your post Nick, disconnection of banks maybe. I had no idea of who Jackson was back then.
90 / 9 represents human's 'earthly lesson', which is 'forgiveness'. Number 9 learns selflessness and compassion. 90 / 9 is the number of wisdom and responsibility, and the ultimate goal of the number 90 / 9 is to serve humanity. This vibration has come to serve the world and make it a better place for all to live in."
I am Ok with that and then finally:
"When 0 is combined with another number, the potential of that number is magnified and amplified. It magnifies, enhances and increases the potential and dimension of the number, bringing success and perfection to its’ qualities and attributes., ie. 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 etc with the protection and Divine Consciousness of the number Zero"
Ok, a major disconnection that is beneficial for society, wow this is fun! 90 is very close to 89 a fib number, so that adds significance I guess.
Nick Elway wrote: The FED Dec 1913 - ?
What's the matter Normsterdamus?
Cat got your Charts?
What is the issue between Argentus Maximus and Spartacus Retard? I've missed it.
Ok, so this is it, a collapsing interest rate against Gold.
I think I've made a big mistake with my analysis according to AM's three low. 104x is already taken out and we are waiting for 102y. So we are in Doozie mode right now, this could run to 1435ish like eclectic posted above, or even higher. Then back to 97z a final low.
Solsson wrote: What is the issue between Argentus Maximus and Spartacus Retard? I've missed it.
Even Norm has that, however it is apparently lacking in your repertoire.
I take it that S.O.L.S.S.O.N.
Same Old Lame Sh*t, Stacked On Nothing?
Spartacus Rex wrote: I take it that S.O.L.S.S.O.N. stands for: Same Old Lame Sh*t, Stacked On Nothing?
BTW, You can keep your "Luck" &
POUND SAND while you're at it!
Hello Spartacus Rex.
I am posting for you and other interested readers, the chart of 21 December last, updated a second time to 5 minutes ago, and I've inserted some additional explanation, text, arrows, etc. This one is almost two months old this week.
My pre Christmas gold forecast is working out like a dream. I hope the blue down swing after the current rally may be just as precisely forecasted, but that's another thing. This forecast MUST break at SOME point, but it's reassuring to see it started out correct and is continuing reasonably well as we get to it's 60 day stage.
As shown gold is indeed moving up sharply towards the red upper cycle high which is due prior to the following (shown lower) blue cycle's weak period. The recently updated price bars are in green, over the earlier black.
I have marked on the chart above my current thinking that this rally's top may come in a little early. Possibly. Nobody really knows. But my guess is that it might.
The blue cycle low .... if it works it might provide a value period ... we'll wait and see about that.
Now as regards my relative silence last couple of days? I'm just sitting watching the market go in my favour for a while. So I guess my answer to your question is I'm sitting, watching, happy enough for the moment ....
Have a nice weekend.
Who knows if this move is headed to 1345 before any meaningful correction. It's just an analog to keep in mind. Here is a chart for everyone's consideration.
I think the most conservative tool for judging whether the final lows have been seen is the concept of synchronicity. That is to say, we need to see the same amount of time--and no more--spent on the right side of the inverse head and shoulder formation as was spent on the left side. This guy is calling for a cup and handle formation, but as we used to say, the problem with charting is that everyone knows the rules. So, we are talking about a lot of time. Regards the ending diagonal formation, if the lows are in we can say that the final wave down is a failure and the count begins near the second price low on December 17, 2015 at 1049.50 vs the low on December 3rd at 1050.60? It is meaningful that the lows were not confirmed by futures on those dates.
Actually, it's the anomaly in the chart that makes it so very interesting right now. Thanks for pulling it back up Rex. I hope you get to see that one thing right "there".
This room is literally one of the two places on the internet where I get new insights into analysis. But I'm still a newbie, only been at this for about 25 years and not as a profession. I'll admit I've got a lot of catching up to do.
So, did I ever tell y'all about the time I was having a long and enlightening conversation with a group of people and someone came in and started telling fart jokes?
EDIT: No need to look for the the main point of the chart, Rex. You get it fully described with labels and annotations.
Nick Elway wrote: Imagine unemployment numbers if we succeeded in "End The Fed"!
Imagine unemployment numbers if we succeeded in "End The Fed"!
You don't have to. Just pull up the employment and economic charts from the beginning of this country. Life was no economic nirvana. This is just another version of a game recently mentioned, my president is better than your president (something like that). Life would be better ONLY IF.....
Then a guy named Dewey came along and showed that recessions occurred like clockwork, just like inflection points occur despite manipulation. There were panics, runs, recessions, wars, pestilence, plaques like there always have been since time immemorial. Fed can't be responsible for all of that? You might find that unemployment, recessions, decline in business cycles have more correlation to the activity of the sun, as has been noted recently, then it does your all powerful central bank. And just like gold will reach it's ultimate high despite manipulation like Schumpeter demonstrated.
Nick Elway wrote: Robert Anton Wilson said a clever numerologist can make any numbers you give them appear significant.
Robert Anton Wilson said a clever numerologist can make any numbers you give them appear significant.
Yes, but a wise numerologist won't be fooled by the clever one. Because he has already read Gann's correspondence course and his reading list of numerology, and ancient mathematics and realizes that whatever reasons you want to attribute to the Civil War, or even 9-11, they all occurred within a Fibonacci Sequence, and the last Fibonacci year we had from the Civil War was 2009. It is claimed he had a 85% rate at predicting markets and events. His list of successes ie track record is available to view. And those were specific predictions, not general. AS I mentioned in another forum, they called him a prophet. But he laughed it off, because he just understood the profound depth of numerical realities and how working them could show us alot about the future.
Nick Elway wrote: Perhaps the cycle guys can give us an end date for the FED?
Perhaps the cycle guys can give us an end date for the FED?
Probably not. Because that assumes something that this paradigm doesn't assume. Why would you do that? Plus endings aren't a big thing among cycle analysts. Go back and read AM's article on the ouroboro's.
While the intensity of this GV or V inflection period has been one of alot of fire, it also seems to be one where a greater realization of the disparity of paradigms that exist on these forums have come up for all of us to view.
My guess is that Laverne's post and Solsons recent posts showing their work trying to decipher cycles at work, represent a leap forward than our old conversations outside of what AM posts. Maybe they even were well timed from the beginning of this forum. Because the reality is rolling up your sleeves and working this stuff is the only to try to figure it out instead of just being on the sidelines and waiting for AM's next post.
These two polarities of understanding have come to the surface and as you would expect, like any good war, they are at odds with each other and each side can't reconcile the others world view.
There is always a silver lining within the chaos.
eclectic wrote: .... Regards the ending diagonal formation, if the lows are in we can say that the final wave down is a failure and the count begins near the second price low on December 17, 2015 at 1049.50 vs the low on December 3rd at 1050.60? It is meaningful that the lows were not confirmed by futures on those dates.
That was a good spot ... the futures non-confirmation. Thanks for mentioning it here.
Re Elliott Wave counts, as usual there are several to choose from.
I like Daneric's current preferred count:
His blog is here if you want: https://danericselliottwaves.blogspot.ie/
Lest that should make you go "hurrah" too quickly, here is is bearish long term count:
Now the ultra long term is still up for grabs, in that the road is not yet paved there. But if that super B and C are to come, then the B could be an irregular, with B making new highs for the gold price, and the C being some kind of post cheap energy/post war/post inflation stagnation financial era. I just mention that. In particular, B could take a very long time to unfold.
How about if the first A leg of that big B takes form of a three up (A) for a year, three down (B) for a year, and a (C) up for a year or two. Unfortunately B waves tie Eliott counts up in knots as they blur the fractal time and price scale boundaries!
But I only included the bigger (bearish) picture for balance, seeing as I was quoting Daneric's compressed weekly picture above it as an illustration of a bullish stance. The possibility of a corrective upswing for a year or two fits a number of the things I look at. And for non EW-ers, corrective means highs and lows following each other, not a pretty uptrend.
This is all very long stuff. The weakness following the current rally when it comes, and the price at which that drawdown stops, be it a higher low or lower low - that's what matters most right now for gold's performance during the next business cycle.
I can only quibble with the following analysis.
Red (1) should be moved slightly to the right at the lower price low. Then, Red (1) (2) (3) = Wave A. Red (4) is a triangle and Wave B. Red (5) is the ending diagonal of Wave C. New bull market? Elliot said if Wave B is a triangle, the entire movement would be comprised of only three waves. His 5-waves down makes no sense of any kind of classification fit. Although his long term bearish scenario looks technically correct if the degrees are reclassified, it's hard to see how the CB's can continue pulling rabbits out of the hat with the current backdrop of macro fundamentals.
It matters not much if it was a 5 down or a three down, since both may be completed now.
The implications are for an up following.
But if this up is a B up it will be very turbulent, whereas if it a, impulsive wave pullbacks will leave gaps and move upwards strongly.
And so there is the question drawn on the chart characterized by the alternative facing global rulers regarding whether the world will experience more stagflation (trading range B type price moves) or strong inflation to devalue fiat currencies (impulsive up waves that trend).
The depth of the pullbacks will answer this under EW, hence my great interest in the size of pullbacks during 2016.
Green Lantern wrote: .... whatever reasons you want to attribute to the Civil War, or even 9-11, they all occurred within a Fibonacci Sequence, and the last Fibonacci year we had from the Civil War was 2009. ....
That particular one targets the maximum geographical coverage of the Unites States Empire for the year 2009.
I was beginning to worry there, LOL.
Seriously though, I'm glad to hear that your absence was merely the result of happiness with the market results.
So, simple (hey perhaps even 'silly') question:
When the Price (or if you prefer "Market") breaks trend and rises rapidly /vertically to approx. "half of the maximum expected upside" do the existing cycle arcs remain as they are nevertheless, or are they expected to adapt to the latest input/s on the y axis along with the add'l input from the current flow and volume?
Note to ewguy, I simply c&p'd the first chart I came upon. I knew you would be okay with it. ; )
suddenly got the urge to slaughter a dinosaur with my newly sharpened Viking ax
I think that December was probably it for this business cycle.
But there is a time in June or July coming that I suspect the last low could get a good testing by fresh bears.
Another way of looking at seasonal trends says look to April. Usually a low, but might it be a rally peak this time? The reason for such doubt there is that last few years the seasonal has been interfered with by central bankers and bullion bank market actions. But I'm open to the idea that with what they get up to, seasonalioty might reign again, and then opportunity could knock during April.
Got to see how it unfolds and decide on the fly as usual. I'm looking to buy into lows at these preferred periods in 2016, provided I can identify the lows, but that's not as simple as it sounds!