Talk:Martin A. Armstrong

Searched using the name "Armstrong" and "Martin Armstrong" do not list or reference "Martin A. Armstrong." I recommend that be changed as many people interestd in this person may not know his full name with middle initial. Gollum18 12:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory Tone

A friend send me this link and I was astonished with the way this is writing seems to have a strong (non-NPOV) conspiracy theory tone. It leaves the reader believing that Dr. Armstrong has been dealt with in an unjust and indeed, illegal manner which is clearly not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.116.65 (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is obviously unconstitutional for someone to be held in contempt of court for refusing to perform in a fashion that incriminates himself. Considering the only way he got a finite sentence was to "confess", I think your perception of "clarity" is simply not in line with most people.

Lousy, biased article

The current article is clearly written by the subject or someone close to him, lacks biographical and historical detail, and presents a one-sided and misleading impression of Armstrong's encounters with the legal system. I'm rewriting it pretty much entirely. Creed of hubris (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Conspiracy Theory Tone

Seven years in jail without a trial is not illegal? And which country would that be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.67.185.252 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The current article which was allowed to replace the original article is just touting the government line. Gone is information from Armstrong's daughter Vicky where she states that one of the main reasons her father is still in prison is because he would not hand over the source code to his 32,000 variable computer model that predicted the downfall of the soviet union and dozens of other exact market turns.

Gone is the fact that former Princeton Economics employee james Smith and other employees witnessed the CIA showing up at the door wanting to aquire the computer model, later after Armstrong was arrested the government seized the computer which self destructed.

Gone are all references to the fact that the government took away Martin's lawyers monies, and that his mother had to hire a lesser lawyer eventually. He never had a proper trial, they never proved that any of the goods demanded were bought with Japanese Client money.

No mention of what Armstrong stated: "oddly there was not one wire transfer of client money into my personal accounts".

The current article talks about Armstrong's impressive forecasting record very briefly implying that Armstrong just claimed as a trader that he predicted all that he did over the past few decades, when it fact his record was well known and published in the media. See Buzz Swartz of money radio in California who ran a website defending Martin for many years, or the #1 top rated money show across Canada host Michael Campbell of radio staion CKNW.com in Canada who worked with Armstrong for years and defended him.

Gone is the fact that Equity Magazine named Martin Armstrong as North America's top economist.

The current article is a hack job, wikipedia is a non-objective biased platform. Wikipedia's editors should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the current article. Book burners. I am not a relative of Martin's nor do I have any financial interest to do with him. I am the editor of http://princetoneconomics.blogspot.com/ and for my trouble and original contributions to the Armstrong wiki article I have now been banned from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chartliner (talk • contribs) 15:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that this article is a travesty, and is totally devoid of useful factual information, except the paragraph with the link to www.scribd.com. When compared against the Wiki article on Bernard Madoff, it is a poor show. However much a crook, it proves that people are conspiring against Armstrong, this is not right. Time to investigate this guy elsewhere! Shame on Wikipedia gate-keeping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.219.71 (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What a hack job this article is. It presents the government's allegations as fact. It is inaccurate and false in its details, hides the timelines critical to understanding the government's actions. (More precisely, Cohen's actions, Cohen appointed as the receiver of Armstrong's company while being employeed by Goldman Sachs, a bitter competitor) I knew it would be a hack job when I did the lookup in Wikipedia: it lists him as "convicted" of securities fraud. He was never convicted. He pled guilty after being worn down by SEVEN years of confinement with NO trial, an abuse of justice if there ever was one. How can any of us feel secure when some magistrate has that type of power?

Another thought question to ask yourself is, if the government had a slam dunk case against this man, why did they lock him up without legal representation and without trial for seven years? Effectively silencing him for the seven years in which the housing boom mortgage derivatives trade began and flourished with great profits for Goldman Sachs for whom Cohen worked. It was Cohen who maintained the contempt order against Armstrong. If they had a case would they not just try him, sentence him, and be done with it? Fortunately, the truth can be wonderfully redundant (Margare Thatcher) and will out at some point. By the way, for grins, go to the Goldman Sachs corporate page and look at the pictures of the foxes there. How would you like to encounter them in a dark alley? Henry madison (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a very good article on Armstrong by Nick Paumgarten in the New Yorker of October 12, 2009. Someone more adept at Wik. procedures than I should furnish this reference. 74.66.82.195 (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Egypt Crisis Will Engulf The Arab World, And Then Spread To Europe

The mysterious (and imprisoned) investment researcher has a new note about the crushing impact of sovereign debt.

http://www.businessinsider.com/martin-armstrong-the-tipping-point-2011-2

http://armstrongeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/armstrongeconomics-tipping-point-2-3-2011.pdf