The 1943 Copper Penny a Flop? Or just Over Hype by Heritage Auctions?

QUESTION: I read that the Heritage auction of the penny they said would bring $1.7 million was a flop. Any indication as to why? Or is it just the firm trying to pawn something for big bucks?


ANSWER: I have no idea why Heritage would have claimed the coin would bring $1.7 million. It is not that rare. There are about 40 to 45 known 1943 copper cents from the Philadelphia Mint. The general assumption is that they were struck by accident when there were some copper blank planchets still remaining in the press hopper when production began on the new steel pennies.

Now as far as sales go, there was a 1943 copper cent which was first offered for sale back in 1958, which sold for more than $40,000, or so it was claimed. Subsequently, there was one sold for only $10,000 at an ANA convention in 1981. The highest amount ever paid for this error previously was $82,500 back in 1996.

There was only one copper 1943 penny known from the Denver Mint which did sell they claim for $1.7 million by Legend Numismatics of Lincroft, New Jersey. I would not guarantee that price personally. US coins tend to get really hyped. This unique coin, not publicly known to exist until 1979, was certified PCGS MS64BN. If Heritage was claiming their penny should bring $1.7 million which was from the far more common hoard of Philadelphia, I really question such expertise. The Heritage example sold for only $204,000, which is a modest advance over the last sale of $82,500 back in 1996.

The culture in American coins is strikingly different. American collectors seem to prize errors. A brockage is an error coin where one side is normal, but the other side instead of the reverse displays the obverse again, but incuse or in a negative mirror-like form. Brockage errors are caused when an already minted coin sticks to the coin die and impresses onto another blank pressing a mirror image of the other coin into the blank.

Brockage errors coins are rare. However, they do not bring significant premiums. A nice Augustus(27BC-14AD) denarius may bring $1,000+ whereas the Brokage will bring about $500 as illustrated above. Here is an extremely rare official Roman die of Emperor Tiberius (14-37AD) with precisely this problem of a silver denarius stuck to the reverse die.

This die of Tiberius is UNIQUE and was discarded because of the brokage error coins it would have produced which would have appeared like the Augustus denarius illustrated above. There are only about 12 official Roman dies that have survived.

Here is Another genuine Roman die of an extremely rare Emperor Gordian I (238AD) who reigned for only 21 days. Obviously, this die was discarded because he did not last in office very long.

There is a completely different culture outside of American coins. Such an error would never bring such premiums. In ancient coins, the premiums attained are for high quality.

The Coming Launch of Socrates

Back in 2015 when they closed the Chicago MERC after 167 years, you did a piece about how flashing screens do not provide the same “feel” as tape watching and floor trading. You also mentioned in that piece that “after Socrates, you will recreate something you always wanted to do” in relation to bringing “feel” back into trading.
My question is; given all the directions you are being pulled- is this still something you aspire to undertake?
I grew up tape watching, and despise blinking screens…it’s a lost art and would welcome anything you might undertake in this area.

ANSWER: Absolutely. We are getting ready for the first launch very soon. The intention is to expand the system to intraday. We are in negotiations with a data-provider to make the system live intraday with reversals and timing on an hourly basis. Trust me. It has been this initial launch that has been delayed by banks changing rules causing us to have to re-write the payment systems three times. Then we have completely different rules for outside North America so it required then setting up another whole new payment system. Then we have been having to set up yet a third for China. This has all been driven by this Hunt for Taxes.

It will be that intraday version that will be sound. Also in Phase-Two of our launch, we will be looking at providing a download version that will link back into our system so you can just talk to it and it will answer. We just cannot do that level of sophistication over the internet.

Plunge Protection Myths = Keynesian Economic Myths

QUESTION: What about what China did by buying stocks a few years ago to stop the hang sang from dropping

ANSWER: Do not confuse attempts to support a market from actually being able to do so. This is the same as Keynesian economics that government could prevent recessions. Larry Summers admitted the government cannot even forecast such events. Not only during the Great Depression did companies jump in to buy their shares during the crash to try to prevent the decline. Most of the companies that took that action actually failed for they bought the stock back trying to hold the price and lost needed cash reserves. They could not sell stock again nor could the borrow.

During the collapse of the Nikkei after 1989, companies held believing that the government would support the market. When they realized the government could not then the government encouraged us to bail out the Japanese corporations. We helped well over 300 public companies issuing a note to buy their portfolios at their cost with 10-year payouts and each note had to be approved by the Japanese government individually. If the governments were able to actually prevent declines, then they would. But nobody can do that for the size of the public at large far outweighs any institution, group of institutions, or banks.

People would rather believe in conspiracy theories than simply look at the reality. Attempts to manipulate markets ALWAYS fail because the majority is far greater than any minority. The trend is made by the MAJORITY. A panic sell-off like the Crash of 1987 took place BECAUSE there was no bid – not that there was a massive short position. Scare the MAJORITY and they then try to sell, you find no bid and that is how a flash crash unfolds. This is why outlawing short positions is destructive for the only person with the courage to try to catch a falling knife is the one who is taking profit – not initiating a long position.

The Myth of the Plunge Protection Team

COMMENT: It looks like the Plunge Protection Team had a field day with the 1,000 rally in the Dow. Back in the 70s I read a small article near the back page of the WSJ that said that the CIA was using two small obscure banks in the Midwest to trade futures. The way they do it is to buy the futures and force the floor traders to stop selling. Then they pile it on and force the shorts to cover.


ANSWER: That is really impossible. I have NEVER found a market that has EVER defied our model. The market bottomed precisely when it should have. Our Cyclical Array pinpointed the day well in advance. That proves there was nothing unusual. Last Friday the 21st, I wrote on the Private Blog: “We do have another Weekly Bearish Reversal at 22739 and a closing below that could warn of a Cycle Inversion meaning down into new week bottoming perhaps on the 26th and then rally into the following week for year-end and then turn back down into January.”

If what you are saying is true, then the government would never collapse and they are 100% in control of everything. That is just not the case. You are attributing power to them that they believe they have. However, if they had such power, then taxes would never rise for they are 100% in control and nothing would happen. Larry Summers, the father of negative interest rates, admitted in a Bloomberg interview that those in power can NEVER forecast a decline because it is a complex system.

I wrote on the Private Blog on December 24th: “The likelihood of lower lows into the 26th are good. But this week remains as a Panic Cycle so we can then see a whipsaw back up into the end of the week. Primary support still lies at the 21600 and 21450 level followed by 20002.”

Then on the day of the low, 26th of December, I posted on the Private Blog at 3AM for the European Open: “Often the bulk of a decline will unfold the day BEFORE the market closes. This is typically as natural human response of the fear of the unknown after the market reopens.”



I just do not see ANYTHING in the market behavior or patterns that would indicate something abnormal. The real explanation is just that all the selling took place on Monday as people feared it would collapse further on the 26th after the market opened. That has been the pattern for more than 100 years – panic before a close of the market for fear of the unknown. Sorry, great story about the Plunge Protection Team. A similar theory prevailed in Japan that the government would NEVERallow the Nikkei to fall. It did, and that belief led to a 19-year depression in share market price, but 26-year economic depression which did not begin to shift trend until 2015.75.

There have been attempts to create a Plunge Protection Team before. The banks got together to try to save the market back in October 1929. Here is the Los Angeles Times from October 26th, 1929 talking about the Stabilizing Forces to save the market. They failed to prevent the Great Depression.

Nobody can step in front of a falling market and survive. Nevertheless, despite the continued failure of such efforts, this myth is always spun. Anyone who believes that such a Plunge Protection Team can even survive never bothers to look at history.

Why Does the Fed Need to Raise Rates?

QUESTION: Hello Mr Armstrong
I would like first to thank u for all the good information u give to us
i have just a question : why do u write the fed need to increase rates to save the us pensionneers
Not realy clear for me ( and maybe a lot of people)
Thanks again and i wish u a wonderful 2019 year !

ANSWER: The entire problem of lowering interest rates to “stimulate” the economy demonstrates that central banks cannot really manage anything. This theory is based upon the idea that if rates are cheap then you will borrow. They fail to even understand HOW the economy functions. The stock market and the economy has NEVER peaked with the same level of interest rates TWICE in history. If you BELIEVE the market will double you will pay 20% interest for a year. If you do not BELIEVE the market will rise at all, you will not borrow at 1%.

Pension funds were based upon the idea that at 8% you double your money in less than 10 years compounded. The system of a pension cannot function at interest rates of 1-3%. This is why states are raising taxes and going broke. They have to make up the losses on investments. Then throw in the corruption of governments. They directed pensions to be “conservative” and thus must own typically more than 50% government bonds up to 85% generally and some are at 100% like Social Security. The lower rates on government bonds, the greater the losses and thus taxes must be raised to compensate for state pensions.

Then, so many funds ran into Emerging Markets to try to compensate for the losses on government bond holdings. Spanish banks ran into Turkish debt which they assumed would become a member of the Eurozone. Turkey was one of the first members of the Council of Europe in 1949, and it became an associate member of the EEC in 1963, joined the EU Customs Union in 1995 and started accession negotiations with the European Union in 2005. However, ever since Erdogan, all negotiations with Turkey to join the EU came to an end in 2017.

Therefore, the Fed realizes that the next crisis is a pension crisis and they need to raise rates to help try to bail out the pension funds. They will not be able to raise the rates fast enough to avoid the crisis coming very rapidly which will contribute to raising tax rates and further suppressing economic growth into the future

Why do Cycles Work?

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Your analysis is really remarkable. When the Dow was making new highs in October you said it was not breaking out. Then you said it would correct to retest the monthly support. You even warned that the bulk of the decline was always before the holiday as fears would grow for what would happen after the market reopened. You always get the highs and you even named the day of the low this week the week before. How can your arrays do this? I know that they do. My question is have you put any effort into discovering why cycles work in the first place?


ANSWER: That is a question I get often and it seems to me to be up there with is there God and what is the meaning of life? All I can say is the foundation of EVERYTHING is a cycle. Here is how sound travels known as the Doppler effect.

Sunlight also travels in waves. Change the frequency and you get a different effect. There is a cycle to absolutely everything around us. The Arrays are composed of a correlation of 72 individual models. Then there is a global correlation to the frequencies of all other markets. So there is not a single cycle that you can reverse-engineer from an array. It just does not work that way. We simply do cycles differently than most people in the cyclical analysis arena.

So why do they work? Perhaps that is just the key to the universe itself. The earth travels around the universe and reaches the same spot once every 25,800 years. We also are born, we live, and then we die – the cycle of life. Then at the core of everything lies the fractal design within nature. It is more than just a Mandelbrot Set. We have children who are copies our ourselves taking bits of both parent’s DNA. That is the process of cyclical reproduction by self-referral.

Then there is the Lorenz Stange Attractor which was the fascinating cyclical behavior of weather systems, which of course are ignored by the Global Warming people. In effect, they are no different from the people who executed others who dared to say the earth was round instead of flat.

Trump v the Federal Reserve

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; A spectacular call. You gave the day and the market bottomed within 100 points of your number. You always nail it. I find it curious how they blamed Trump and the Fed. Can Trump fire the head of the Fed? I really think he seriously needs to attend your WEC. He would have seen this move coming.



ANSWER: No. President Trump’s comments about firing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell are really off the wall. The problem is he has the classic TV talking heads view that stocks will crash with higher interest rates. Trump’s frustration with the central bank chief intensified following the interest-rate increase and months of stock-market losses. He is oblivious to the real crisis which is the low-interest rates are destroying the pension funds.

Meanwhile, the media blames Trump for his tweets and the talking heads attribute the decline to interest rates. Powell cannot publicly state why rates have to rise or he would create a real debt panic. Trump is clueless as is Capitol Hill with the monumental crisis in global debt.

For now, the news will bash the stocks when down, and when investors/traders see there can be no flight to bonds as quality, the real panic will begin. I wish I could reverse this mess, but reality states Trump’s handlers are rooting for the Deep State and would never let me near him.

The Democrats want the stocks to crash for they can blame Trump and try to win the losers to vote for their team. The shame here is this is not about running the nation or the economy to benefit all, it is just about winning the 2020 election. Since the ECM turns in January 2020 rather than the elections in November 2020, this is indicating that we may have a psychological shift prior to the elections.

German Hyperinflation & the Dawes Plan

The German Hyperinflation was by NO MEANS about inflation created by an increase in the money supply under the Quantity Theory of Money (QTM). Today, Angela Merkel has forcefully imposed Austerity upon the whole of Europe because she really does not understand what even caused the hyperinflation. It was at the Palace of Versailles outside Paris when Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles on June 28th, 1919 with the Allies, officially ending World War I. AT that time, the English economist John Maynard Keynes attended the peace conference. However, Keynes left in protest of the treaty becoming the first outspoken critic of what would prove to be the most punitive agreement that only set the stage for World War II and the rise of Adolf Hitler in 1933.

John Maynard Keynes wrote in his The Economic Consequences of the Peace, which he published in December 1919, that the harsh war reparation payments and other harsh terms that they were to impose on Germany by the treaty would lead to the financial collapse of the country. Keynes further warned that this Treaty would result in serious economic and political repercussions on Europe and the world as a whole. The political trend at the time refused to listen. This was all about punishing Germany.

We must also understand that wars are created by politicians – not the people. Prior to the Treaty of Versailles signed in June 1919there was the German Communist Revolution which began the Weimar Republic. It was this 1918 German Communist Revolution which was inspired by the 1917 Russian Revolution that resulted in the overthrown of the monarchy in Germany ending the Emperors and the king of Prussia. The revolutionary period lasted from November 1918 until the adoption in August 1919. But what also seems to be omitted from many accounts taught in school, is the simple fact that the German government interfered in the Russian Revolution and was instrumental in creating the Russian Revolution.

The German Emperor Wilhelm II Imperial Government actually feared that Russia would enter World War I. The rising communist movement in Russia was anti-war. Germany saw a chance for victory in Europe if it kept Russia out of the war. Hence, Germany supported the Communist anti-war sentiment of the Bolsheviks in Russia. Germany permitted Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) to travel in a sealed train wagon from his place of exile in Switzerland through Germany, Sweden, and Finland to Petrograd. Since the start of the February Revolution in Russia, Lenin was trying to figure out a way to get back into Russia. Germany aided his return assuming he was anti-war and would thus keep Russia out of World War I. Lenin returned to Russian on April 16th, 1917. Within months of arriving, Lenin led the October Revolution in Russia and the Bolsheviks seized power and indeed Russia withdrew from the world war. According to Leon Trotsky, the October Revolution would not have succeeded without Lenin.

With the success of the October Revolution in Russia and the Dream of a new Marxist Utopia, the Germans entered into a civil war and invited Lenin to please take Germany. Clearly, the scheme of the Imperial German government had backfired. It not only was instrumental in creating the Soviet Union by turning over Russia’s socialist transformation decisively into the hands of the Bolsheviks, its plan led to the overthrow of its own hold on power. This is all recorded in contemporary newspapers (see New York Times Nov 11, 1918).

The Prussian Emperor Wilhelm II (1859-1941) found himself in the midst of troubling economic and social disorder. A series of mutinies by German sailors and soldiers undermined Wilhelm II’s government and he lost the support of his military which enabled the German people to revolt. Wilhelm II was forced to abdicate on November 9th, 1918. The very following day, a provisional government was announced composed of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany (USDP). To this day, the SDP has remained as a major part against all opposition. Then in December 1918, German elections were held for a National Assembly with the goal of creating a new parliamentary constitution. On February 6th, 1919, the National Assembly met in the town of Weimar and formed the Weimar Coalition. They also elected SDP leader Friedrich Ebert (1871-1925) as President of the Weimar Republic who served from 1919 until 1925.

It was Friedrich Ebert who had to deal with the Treaty of Versailles. When the terms became known on May 7th, 1919, the German people rose in protest. Ebert himself did denounce the treaty as “unrealizable and unbearable” yet he understood that Germany was not allowed to negotiate nor reject the treaty. Ebert even asked Hindenburg if the army could put up a defense if the Allies renewed hostilities. Hindenburg said that the army was not capable of resuming the war even on a limited scale. Ebert then advised the National Assembly to approve the treaty, which it did by a large majority on July 9th, 1919.

The Treaty of Versailles commanded Germany to reduce its military, take responsibility for the World War I, relinquish some of its territories and pay exorbitant reparations to the Allies. It also prevented Germany from joining the League of Nations at that time. Thus, the treaty punished the German people for the sins of its government. Indeed, the military created World War I for it is generally accepted that Wilhelm II was largely just a ceremonial figurehead. During the Sarajevo crisis with the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria on June 28th, 1914, he was Wilhelm’s friend and he offered to support Austria-Hungary in crushing the opposition who assassinated the Archduke. Wilhelm went on his annual cruise of the North Sea July 6th, 1914. Wilhelm returned to Berlin on the 28th of July that year and eagerly read a copy of the Serbian reply. Wilhelm wrote his comment on it:

“A brilliant solution—and in barely 48 hours! This is more than could have been expected. A great moral victory for Vienna; but with it every pretext for war falls to the ground, and [the Ambassador] Giesl had better have stayed quietly at Belgrade. On this document, I should never have given orders for mobilization.”

Wilhelm did not know at the time that the military had convinced the Emperor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Franz Joseph I (b 1830; 1848 – 1916), to sign a declaration of war against Serbia. As a direct consequence, Russia began a general mobilization to attack Austria in defense of Serbia. Wilhelm wrote a lengthy commentary containing his observations:

“… For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves—knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria—to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us … Our dilemma over keeping faith with the old and honourable Emperor has been exploited to create a situation which gives England the excuse she has been seeking to annihilate us with a spurious appearance of justice on the pretext that she is helping France and maintaining the well-known Balance of Power in Europe.”

In school, I remember being taught that World War I was the result of treaties among governments which then force one to come to the aid of another. Clearly, the Treaty of Versailles set the stage for World War II by its very crushing terms that nobody would be able to meet. The Treaty of Versailles set out a plan for reparations to be paid by Germany requiring to them to pay 20 billion gold marks, as an interim measure, with the final amount to be decided upon at later date. In 1921, the London Schedule of Payments set the German reparation figure at 132 billion gold marks divided into various classes, of which only 50 billion gold marks were required to be paid.

Meanwhile, the industrialists of Germany’s Ruhr Valley lost their factories in Lorraine. Germany had seized Lorraine back in 1870 and now this was to also part of the demands be returned to France. There was also an occupation of the Ruhr industrial area by France and Belgium. The Germans affected by the Treaty and the seizure of their property by France and Belgium now demanded hundreds of millions of marks as compensation from the German government and they paid the Ruhr Valley industrialists for their losses. This also contributed to the German Hyperinflation crisis and it effectively reduced the ability of the German economy to recover.

While the narrow neo-classical economic theory, hyperinflation is rooted in a deterioration of the monetary base, there is little attention paid to the collapse in public confidence that there is a store of value that the currency will be able to command later. Hence, people do not save and the velocity of money increases as people attempt to spend it as fast as they get it. There is a perceived risk of holding currency which rises dramatically at the core. Interest rates rise because they are the premiums people expect in the future when loans are repaid to make a profit. The hyperinflation that was set in motion by the Treaty of V was not limited to Germany. We also saw hyperinflations that I defined as a sharp and sudden doubling in prices (50% decline in the purchasing power of a currency) is less than three months in Austria and Hungary as well during this same period. In the case of Austria, hyperinflation began in October 1921 and continued into September 1922. In Hungary, the hyperinflation unfolded between March 1923 and February 1924. Philip Cagan’s (1956) The Monetary Dynamics of Hyperinflation widely accepted a definition which defines it as a price-level increase of at least 50% per month. However, even Cagan had to make exceptions because this cannot be defined precisely as some percent that is crossed will result definitively in hyperinflation. Therefore, the accepted definition remains rather vague and ill-defined.

In the case of Austria. here there was a separate treaty known as the Treaty of St. Germain which declared that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was to be dissolved. Under article 177 Austria, along with the other Central Powers, accepted responsibility for starting the war. The new Republic of Austria was to then consist of most of the German-speaking Danubian and Alpine provinces in former Cisleithania. Hungary was now split and Austria was commanded to recognize the independence of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Kingdom of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs. The Treaty of St. Germain also included ‘war reparations’ of vast sums of money that could also never economically be paid.

In the case of the Austrian Hyperinflation, the foreign-exchange value of the Austrian crown reflected the catastrophic depreciation of this event. In January 1919 one dollar could buy 16.1 crowns on the Vienna foreign-exchange market; by May 1923, a dollar traded for 70,800 crowns. According to the provisions of the Treaty of St. Germain, the newly created Republic of Austria had to overstamp the old paper money of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire still circulating in its territory, then had to replace the overstamped banknotes with new ones, and finally had to introduce an entirely new currency. To complete the first step, the circulating banknotes had to be overstamped with the inscription DEUTSCHÖSTERREICH, and new banknotes were also issued with this feature. Later, still under the name Oesterreichisch-ungarische Bank, banknotes were printed using the German-language clichés on both sides yet still displayed the DEUTSCHÖSTERREICH inscription. From 1920 onward, a new stamp appeared on banknotes: “Ausgegeben nach dem 4. Oktober 1920”. Next, in 1922 a new series of Krone banknotes was introduced with a completely new design to complete the second step. This series contained 1 Krone, 2, 10, 20, 100, 1000, 5000, 50 000, 100 000 and 500 000 Kronen, later 10 000 Kronen (1 000 000 Kronen was planned but not issued). Finally, in 1925, as the third step was to issue a new series of Austrian Schilling banknotes.

During this period, the printing presses worked night and day churning out the currency. At the meeting of the Verein für Sozialpolitik (Society for Social Policy) in 1925, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises told the audience:

During the first five years after World War I, coal was scarce in Europe. France sought coal for its steelmakers from Germany. But the Germans needed coal for home heating and for their own steel industry, having lost many of their steel plants in Lorraine to the French. As a means of protecting their own growing German steel industry, the German coal producers—whose directors also sat on the boards of the German state railways and German steel companies—began to leverage high costs though shipping rates on coal exports to France.[3]

In early 1923, Germany defaulted on its war reparations payments and German coal producers refused to ship any more coal across the border. In response to this, French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr River valley inside the borders of Germany in order to compel the German government to continue to ship coal and coke in the quantities demanded by the Versailles Treaty, which, Germany which characterized as onerous under its post war condition (60% of what Germany had been shipping into the same area before the war began).[4]

This occupation by the French military of the Ruhr, the centre of the German coal and steel industries outraged the German people. They passively resisted the occupation, and the economy suffered, contributing further to the German hyperinflation.

Hyperinflation thus unfolded in Germany because those with money saw what Lenin had done in Russia and sent whatever wealth they had to other places, particularly the United States.  They got their wealth out through using foreign coins, but also collectibles such as stamps and coins in particular. By the end of World War II, most German rare stamps and coins were actually in the United States and were slowly making their way back to Germany during the 1960s and 1970s.

The Weimar Republic then just printed money to pay reparation payments and the entire system collapsed.

The Dawes Plan (as proposed by the Dawes Committee, chaired by Charles G. Dawes) was an initial plan in 1924 to resolve the World War I reparations that Germany had to pay, which had strained diplomacy following World War I and the Treaty of Versailles.

The Dawes plan provided for an end to the Allied occupation, and a staggered payment plan for Germany’s payment of war reparations. Because the Plan resolved a serious international crisis, Dawes shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1925 for his work.

It was an interim measure and proved unworkable. The Young Plan was adopted in 1929 to replace it.

Dow & the Future

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I understand at the WEC you told the audience the stock market would correct sharply into January/February. For those of us who could not afford to attend a WEC, are we to expect the slingshot you have been warning should take place?

Thank you;


ANSWER: Yes. Timing is absolutely everything. DO NOT ANTICIPATE anything. Time is more important than price. But we also act on the reversals in conjunction with time. We have people already declaring this is a bear market. Many may not even be old enough to have traded a bear market. Let me explain one thing. We are NOT dealing with a bear market. We are dealing with a period where we must set up everything for what is to come. I have been warning that normally after an 8-year bull market, there is traditionally a correction.

The final prognosticate on time will arrive with this year’s closing. We need the year-end closings and the computer will then forecast what is to come between now and the end of this cycle wave in January 2020.

How we approach this will be critical. Nonetheless, we have a lot on the horizon. Besides BREXIT in March, we then have the May elections for the EU. The number of people who may be elected that are actually anti-EU is likely to rise. The European election will be as chaotic and we expect the Democrats to make the entire world economy unstable as they make a lot of noise in hopes of driving Trump from office in 2020.

The market will have to absorb a lot of political turmoil in 2019 and we are witnessing the rise of tensions on a grand scale.

We will have the 2019 Outlook Report out in January. We are trying to finalize the contracts for a European WEC in Rome during the first week of May. We will let everything know when that is confirmed.

The First BREXIT – 260AD

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, thank you for your excellent commentary. Could you comment on the monetary system in Britain during the period following Rome’s waterfall event? I would be especially interested in the period following the capture of Valerian I through the 9th century.


Postumus AU Aureus as Hercules - R

ANSWER: I suspect that the purpose of your inquiry is the loose history taught in Britain that there was a usurper in Britain by the name of Carausius (287-293AD). Effectively, there was a previous usurpation which was really a separatist movement you can call ancient BREXIT. That was led by Postumus (260-268AD) who made his move for power upon the capture of Valerian in 260AD. Interestingly, there we 34 intervals of 51.6 years from 260 that brought us to 2014/2015 for the rise of BREXIT. At least cyclically, it was on time and this was just one component that the computer attributed to the success of the BREXIT referendum.

Image result for Constantius I gold medallion

I have written the full account of the rise of the next attempted usurpation by Carausius. While the first separatist movement failed when Postumus’s successor Tetricus I surrendered in 273AD ending the Gallic Empire, the next usurpation came into play 14 years later in 287AD with Carausius. This attempt at a separatist movement was ended by the father of Constantine the GreatConstantius I Chlorus. This is a medallion showing him entering London.


After the fall of Rome, we see gold Thrymsa appear in Britain around 620AD. There begins a debasement process and by 675AD what use to be gold vanishes and is replaced with silver. We see a brief political issue of gold under Offa(757-796). Other than that issue, gold does not reappear again until Henry III in 1257.