Defining the Business Cycle

By Martin Armstrong

There are those that adamantly deny the existence of a Business Cycle for one simple reason; if a regular Business Cycle exists, then man and his government, driven by special interests, are incapable of manipulating its outcome. The entire foundation of Marxism was the recognition of the Business Cycle and the idea that it could be eliminated by confiscating all the wealth of the people. Even John Maynard Keynes(1883–1946) followed this basic tenet of Karl Marx (1818–1883) and assumed that government had a role it could play in preventing the Business Cycle from rising and falling. Yet in the midst of such adversity, what these ideas ignored is that man learns from his mistakes as an individual as well as a group. It has been through the Business Cycle that all advancement and thus economic evolution emerges. Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950) called these Business Cycle events – Waves of Creative Destruction. Unless oil rises in price to excessively high price levels, alternative fuels will never be developed. There must be a viable economic foundation to open the door to whatever new alternative might exist. This becomes the economic evolution within society.

This assumption that man is even capable of altering the Business Cycle at will is the delusion of demigods. Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, expressed in his 1979 Rediscovery of the Business Cycle:

“Not much more than a decade ago, in what now seems a more innocent age, the ‘New Economics’ had become orthodoxy. Its basic tenet, repeated in similar words in speech after speech, in article after article, was described by one of its leaders as ‘the conviction that business cycles were not inevitable, that government policy could and should keep the economy close to a path of steady real growth at a constant target rate of unemployment. … By the early 1970s, the persistence of inflationary pressures, even in the face of mild recession, began to flash some danger signals; the responses of the economy to the twisting of the dials of monetary and fiscal policy no longer seemed quite so predictable. But it was not until the events of 1974 and 1975, when a recession sprung on an unsuspecting world with an intensity unmatched in the post-World War II period, that the lessons of the ‘New Economics’ were seriously challenged.”

Even the previous Chairman of the Federal Reserve Arthur Burns (1904-1987) shared the same view. Government with all its power and endorsement of John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) who argued that the economy can be managed to eliminate the Business Cycle, has been unable to prevent recessions and economic booms.

Indeed, the Business Cycle is as regular as the four seasons for even weather is incorporated within it. As weather has fluctuated according to a 300-year cycle in the energy output of the sun, mankind has been driven hither and yon in search of better weather and food supply. Thus, migration throughout the world has also been a byproduct of the Business Cycle. Even if we look at the economic composition of society since the late 1700s, we can see how nothing remains stagnant but is always captured within the fluctuations of the Business Cycle.

To a large extent, society was still 70% agrarian in major countries during the mid-19^th century. By 1900, still about 41% of the civil work force was employed in agriculture, which fell to 3% finally by 1980. Consequently, one can neither manipulate the weather nor dictate to God what he prefers to see economically. Simply put, you cannot pass a law to prevent droughts or make it rain.

During the 19^th century, there were great waves of innovation that certainly helped to bring about recoveries within the U.S. economy. Nonetheless, while these stages of the Industrial Revolution were unfolding to propel the economy out of the depths of recession or depression, money supply was also unpredictable. Because the monetary standard was gold at the time, this cause havoc with the economy for great waves of inflation were unleashed upon the population purely as a factor of new discovery. There was the 1849 Gold Rush is California. This was followed by the Australian Gold Rush where between 1851 and 1861, Australia produced one third of the world’s new gold supply. The silver discoveries in Colorado took place in 1864 and this eventually fueled the huge inflationary boom flooding the economy with silver dollars after 1878 that led to the Panic of 1893. Then in Alaska gold was discovered in large quantities in the Klondike on August 16, 1896. This created another great expansion of money supply. These were similar devastating economic booms and busts  to the great import of precious metals from the New World by Spain that sparked massive inflation for Europe during the 16^th and 17^th Centuries that resulted in the bankruptcy of Spain.

The Economic Confidence Model (ECM) is a refined theory of the Business Cycle by Martin Armstrong. The Business Cycle has been observed by many over the centuries and the driving mechanism is indeed complex, but it certainly incorporates many aspects from the repetitive forces of nature as in the changing seasons to the human passions of man that to a large extent result in the repetitive forces driven by the passions of man.

Everything is incorporated within the Business Cycle from weather to politics. Nothing moves in a straight line. Even your heart beats in a cycle. Nothing is free of a cycle as long as it lives.

If we look at the Roman Empire, we see the same cyclical forces at work. There is in fact no Empire, Nation, or City-State that has survived the ravages of time and circumstance for all societies are buried within a common grave

The key to comprehending the Global Economy lies in the realization that we are not alone. Everything is connected in an intricate dynamic nonlinear network where the slightest change in one region can set in motion a ripple effect of dramatic proportions around the world. Understanding this dynamic nonlinear global network is the first step in restructuring government and our idea of managing our political-social-economy.

The primary mistake many make with the Economic Confidence Model (ECM) is assuming it should be a perfect model for the stock market, gold, or some other market. It is a global model and does not track any individual market. It is tracking the phenomenon of international capital flows. There is a shift back and forth between PUBLIC and PRIVATE investment trends. For example, the wave that peaked in 1929 was a PRIVATE wave where people had great confidence in the private sector. When the crash came, we turned toward the government creating a more conservative wave of PUBLIC investment where bonds do better than stocks.

The peak of that PUBLIC wave was marketed by the peak in interest rates during March 1981. Confidence shifted back to the PRIVATE sector and the Dow Jones finally broke through the 1,000 barrier. The takeover boom began as stocks had been ignored during the PUBLIC wave and actually bottomed in 1977 from a book value perspective. The takeover boom was caused by the realization that you could buy companies, sell there assets, and double your money. Stocks were seriously undervalued.

Capital concentrates into a single region and then into a single market. There is a cycle to this as well from within a region such as the hot market will be real estate, bonds, stocks, commodities, and then back to real estate. What makes a bubble is this concentration of capital. However, every market retains its own cycle and it is when that cycle lines up with the ECM that we get the big booms and busts. Gold has a 8 year cycle that is fractal building into a 64 year cycle. It peaked in 1980 and declined for 19 years until its model turned in 1998. Because gold has been used as money periodically, you must understand that in a gold standard, inflation means gold declines, whereas it is the opposite during a free market. Therefore, while the 64 year model shows an idealized peak for 1998, it is a turning point rather than a particular high of low. The low in gold at that time sets it up for its ultimate high against government 64 years later.

The key to understanding the ECM is this global capital concentration. Hence, 1929 was a concentration of capital in the USA as money fled Europe and correctly so since they by and large defaulted on their national debts in 1931. This drove the dollar to historic highs, confused politicians who then adopted protectionism, all because capital was fleeing. Today, capital is fleeing Europe in fear of defaults once again.

Its proper use of the ECM is to understand that it is NOT a model based upon a single market and it should not be attempted to force fit this model to any individual market. The key is to watch the individual market that is lining up with the ECM and that is where the most intense capital flow will be moving.

This is why there was a bubble top in US in 1929 and 1989 in Japan. It is global capital flows. Each market has its own cycle that is separate and unique. It is when that individual market lines up with the ECM that you get the big moves.

The 2007.15 turning point picked precisely to the day the peak in the real estate indexes. That was the real turning point. The pressed called it Armstrong’s Revenge. But this is simply how these function. Capital concentrates into a single sector within a single region. It is that concentration of capital that makes that market explode.

The 8.6 year frequency is fractal in nature and it may indeed work from different dates other than the formal dates we show on the ECM. This is a frequency that is inherent in everything and is fractal in nature. Its proper use is determining the shifts in capital flows to yield the boom bust cycle in the economy (global investment). It is by no means a universal model for every market. Cycle duration in Agriculture tend to be shorter and more volatile because they are also lined up with weather. The markets in financials (stocks & bonds) tend to be the longer than commodities, with the longest cycle duration being real estate.

This cycle has been present even in ancient data. So it is by no means geared to a single market nor should it be presumed to be a perfect model for an individual market. Each market has its own cycle. These are what we show in the Forecast Arrays which are not based on the ECM. It is the correlation of the individual market cycles to the ECM that we discovery where capital will flow to next.

By no means try to use this for a individual market unless that market lines up with the ECM. As you can see, all the things that turn with the ECM over years is based upon capital concentration. It is inherent within the economic structure that we live