Market Technicals Signal Sell In May

This is a companion to my prior post on why the GDP report is giving a sell signal, which looked at market fundamentals. Market technicals also give a sell signal. The current market pattern indicates a drop is due. Monday morning will be the tell: it needs to bounce or the bet is for a serious drop. 

Technicals

I went bullish in Nov08. A normal bounce from the deep drop goes at least 50%, so in Jan09 I predicted the Dow would break 10500, which it did in Nov09. Once we went past Dow 10500, the next target became the 62% retrace off the Mar09 bottom. 

This month's EWFF points out that the Dow (11258) and S&P (1220) came really close to the ideal of 61.8%. If they continue up, the target range is Sp1250-1275, around another 5% upside. 

Tonight's STU notes how we fell off the top in a five-wave pattern, which completed a fourth-wave flat correction, and they expected a fifth wave up. The first two waves make that count problematic. What would be the wave 2 of 5 broke as a "5" not a "3" and retraced 78% instead of the normal 50-62%. If it drops a bit more, and especially if it breaks the mid-week lows (Dow10965/Sp1182), the market would be highly likely to head down much deeper. 

The market will always tend to surprise, and so rather than just a drop or a bounce Monday, we might see a jitter. The wave structure of a five-wave drop in the prospective wave 2 of 5 means a bounce and drop has to happen Monday to restructure the wave into a "3", turning the five-wave pattern into a double zigzag down. Alternatively, we might see a gap down. The wave structure of the five-wave drop lacks an extended wave, which a normal impulse wave has. It would take a Monday gap down to create an extended third or fifth. If that happens, it would be very clear the market is in for a world of hurt. 

Hence wave theory says: either a jitter and a bounce, or an air-pocket down.

If we do drop, the STU points to Dow10730/Sp1150 as key levels, the place where the prior breakout up occurred. This drop could be the end of the Hope Rally, or the last major drop (a B wave) before a final thrust up. It doesn't matter at the moment which, since in both cases the play is for a drop. A break of the Feb5 lows (Dow9835/Sp1045) mean the Hope Rally is done. 

The STU has a wealth of other predictions which suggest a change is near on the USD, Treasuries and gold. It will be really interesting to see if a temporary save of Greece leads to a switch in sentiment. British elections next week, and then German elections a week or so later. One way or another, some major market will be putting out Mayday! Mayday! Stay close to things the next few weeks

Comments

[carl]

It will eaither go up or stay about the same (jitter) or go down.
Great help that is!

Truth is none of us have a clue at the moment

[PPT_agent]

Top is in.
928 calendar days one April 26 top from Oct 2007 top: That's F16 lunations.
10EMA $CPCE uptrend.
$VIX above bolinger band twice in one week, first time since March 2009 bottom.
$SPX lags $FTSE 7 bars this time, as oppose to 5 bars in January.

[Account Deleted]

Respected DG !!

I have posted two more pictures of the same stock on LOG SCALE.Please have a look at them whenever u have time.

http://yfrog.com/3mjptsecur1jx

Here is one more entire chart on MONTHLY LOG SCALE

http://yfrog.com/emjptmonthlyj

Regards
VB

[Hank Wernicki]

Carl, here's the clue : IF the lows from Friday hold then a nice rally ( parent bottom 10m )

Below that level ( reversal ) the selling continues for Monday from its previous fractal.

We may know more on the ES session for Sunday.

[DG]

VB,

Can you tell me what direction you'd like to see the stock go in? The reason I ask is because I still think that it is in some kind of B-wave following an Impulse up to the highs (looks like a 5th-wave Extension), then an Impulse wave-A down from that high to begin a Zigzag.

If you are looking to go long the stock, go long on a breakout with a stop at the most recent structural low. If you are looking to go short the stock, find a pattern from the most recent low that looks like it is completing and determine the size of the "largest and fastest" correction within that pattern. Wait for a correction larger than that one and use that as your entry point, with a stop at the highs of the pattern you think completed. From there, if the downtrend continues, stop movement will preserve your profits. If wave-C has truly started at that point, your stop should never be in jeopardy.

Of course, this strategy is what Neely has used during the rally since the March 2009 lows, so it comes with the risk that the wave-B will continue. In a Zigzag, wave-B should not retrace more than 61.8% of wave-A, so you have that as an approximate line in the sand for this count. This is also why it is important that IF the stock goes back above the high you think is "the top" for wave-B, you go long, while either retaining your short trade position, in which case the long is a hedge or exiting your short position. Why? Because of the "Rule of Localized Progress Label Changes" from MEW, which requires that if a structural point is exceeded, you must move its Progress Label down 1 Degree and assume that the wave you though was complete is now subdividing into a more complex wave.

As I said, if it's a Zigzag, that sort of subdividing can keep going until the 61.8% level, so it's not use fighting that, if it starts to happen.

[DG]

These Daily charts have served me well since early March when the late February turn down was reversed and I haven't had to scramble to count five waves down from every spike higher along the way.

The short-term chart is a refutation of the idea that we had an Impulse down from the highs. As always with wave structures, the devil is in the details. You'd think that people would get tired of calling wave structures Impulsive by now and simply go in to the analysis with the assumption that the structure will be Corrective and find a way to refute that hypothesis, if possible, rather than assume that the structure is Impulsive and then ignore the Essential Construction Rules of Impulse waves to wrangle an Impulse out of a Corrective wave.

Want to make your wave counts more accurate? Simply assume every structure you are analyzing is a Corrective structure and then go about deciphering what kind of Corrective structure it is. Only after exhausting all possible Corrective interpretations of structure should you say something is an Impulse.

http://yfrog.com/1nspyhalfhourlypx

[rc]

This oil spill may signal a market psychology turning point -- a change in the narrative. BP, and any other involved company, must be shaking in their boots. And, whether the Obama administration has any blame, the public will still question their competence. The left may even be the angriest after they just acquiesced to opening up more off-shore drilling. And Sarah? The "drill, baby, drill" refrain doesn't sound so good right now.

Personally, I look around my metro area at rush hour, and see SUV after Truck with the sole occupant the driver, mostly sitting in congested traffic (not travelling over rough off-road terrain), as they come and go to the office. And, I ask myself -- this is an energy crisis?

It baffles me how any intellectually honest, reasonable person, can conclude other than oil is cheap, and it is being shockingly wasted. The "true cost" is being paid other than at the pump, such as with the environmental damage now occurring, or a limited resource that may become precious and costly in the future. Let gas go to $8 a gallon. So, people will drive Honda Fit's. So, what... like that would be some awful fate. There's no free lunch. There are costs and they always get paid. Those who complain about socialism, are themselves loath to pay true costs. Or, too dull to grasp the simple concept of the Tragedy of the Commons.

[robert]

rc Gas goes to $8 a gallon and more people won't be driving at all than driving an economizer. Less driving = more walking, bicycling, use of public transit = better cardio vascular and respiratory health, less dependency on big oil, less demands on health care "systems." What's not to like about that?

[DG]

Gas goes to $8 a gallon and more people won't be driving at all than driving an economizer. Less driving = more walking, bicycling, use of public transit = better cardio vascular and respiratory health, less dependency on big oil, less demands on health care "systems." What's not to like about that?

It's not that simple. More walking equals more need for calories, which come from growing more food, which means more petrochemicals for fertilizer. People don't seem to realize that a car engine is much more efficient than the human body, in terms of converting potential into kinetic energy. The most energy-efficient way to move from point A to point B is by automobile, almost regardless of how far point A and point B are from each other. Which makes sense, right? Automobile engines are engineered by the finest human minds looking to increase performance with each iteration of the basic design, whereas human bodies have evolved minimally for millenia. More people living longer means longer times drawing from Social Security and other pension plans.

Look into the research surrounding the decline in smoking. You'll find that it has increased the forecasted cost of old-age programs because smokers have a tendency to die younger.

[rc]

DG - no offense, but you could bike faster from I-95 to the I-270 interchange on the DC beltway. The average car speed is probably about 5 mph.

robert - I absolutely agree. The quality of life could improve dramatically if we reduced our dependence on the car. Let's see... someone sits in a gas guzzling SUV with their BP rising as they inch forward and time ticks by. And then they go on a treadmill uselessly expending energy to maintain some cardio fitness.

Imagine if we had tree-lined walkways and bike paths that could get you almost everywhere within a region, along with perhaps lanes for small electric motor assisted bikes and golf-car like vehicles... and perhaps shops and cafe's along the way.

Instead, we have a car-transportation monopoly and little progressive thinking. I've tried biking to work. It's not practical with our unfriendly roadway set-up. I say raise the price of gasoline to $8 a gallon. That'd change the dynamic to sensible conservation (not immoral waste) and alternatives.

But, politicians won't do what's best for the common welfare -- only what's best for their immediate election prospects and the shrill, short-sighted wins out.

BTW, I'm not a dem or a repub, a con or lib: I characterize myself as rational. And we don't have a political home.

[DG]

DG - no offense, but you could bike faster from I-95 to the I-270 interchange on the DC beltway. The average car speed is probably about 5 mph.

I'm not talking speed, I'm talking energy-efficiency. A car engine is way more efficient than a human body.

[nspolar]

It was interesting to read in the news this morning that BP chief is blaming the BO on a failure of the BOP (equipment failure). This fits the BP pattern, of shifting blame and responsibility to someone else (my opinion based on industry observations). Liability wise I think there is good reason for BP CEO to blame someone else.

It is also typical to tell the public something that sounds good. The BOP failed sounds good, but is completely misleading at this stage, even if it did.

I have searched and read everything I can find.

The best piece I read was by a drilling engineer who has worked on the Deepwater H. He stated we do not know all the facts, but the most likely cause of this BO would be human error. These deepwater rigs are just too state of the art for this to just happen.

The fellow who was on the rig that gave an interview also stated the BOP had just been tested.

I am not a drilling engineer, but I have been on rigs, for various equipment reasons.

There were a couple of things I read that seemed odd about all of this.

Control of well bore pressure is all about understanding of pressures, hydrostatic heads and all that. If all the work is done correctly the BOP never gets used. There seems to be a bit of confusion as all the articles I have read are not in complete synce, but it appears the well had just been plugged, with temporary cement plugs, as it was being readied for temporary abandonment. Nothing odd about this.

The mud had been removed from the riser, and replaced with saltwater. Apparently the plugs failed, the hydrostatic head was now not enough to hold the pressure. A gas column then rose and engulfed the rig in heavier than air gas. It was likely a small miracle more did not perish. The initial explosion had to have been major.

Now why did not the rig hands close the BOP from topside? Why did they seemingly not see this coming? It takes time for this column to move a mile up the riser. They have state of the art data. The best guess is they were no longer paying attention, as they thought the well was safe. The Deepwater H was actually hours away from pulling away. In addition another comment I read is that because they were getting ready to pull away they may have started disconnect of the BOP (from topside).

Once the explosion occurred, and after the rig went down, any number of things could prevent the BOP from closing. It could be damaged. It had to take some hellish moments due to twisting and buckling of the attached riser, as the rig went down.

One thing really seemed odd to me however. I read that the BOP still has drill tubing coming out of it. I do not know how they can tell if the riser is attached. Maybe the riser was punctured, but it did not say. But if there is drill tubing still in the hole, why would they remove the mud in the riser, and replace with salt water? Seems a bit odd to me, from a safety standpoint. Since I am not a driller I do not know the exact procedures here.

I have read estimates of potential BP liability up to 50 Billion USD. Think about that.

In the limit I would think the possibility is there that this could nearly bankrupt BP. In any event it is gonna cause some real hurt.

The conundrum of deepwater drilling and production seemingly to me is that the liabilities are getting so great that a private company can no longer afford to do it. Ultimately this then could head towards some form of nationization, which is the antithesis of what the oil industry is all about.

Going to be interesting as to how all the repurcussions play out.

As a side note I was curious to see what Sarah Palin might have to say here. Seemingly quiet on that end.

And finally for the B top affectionados, look at BP and RIG. For the top of the commodity cycle affectionado (nspolar), I would say the hits these stocks have already taken look like there is something going on (or down).

ns

[Account Deleted]

Respected DG !!

Thanx for your interesting perspective on the stock.I must say u r a really good human being.Otherwise no one wouldve taken such an effort to analyse a totally unknown chart for an unknown person.Thanx a lot.
I also take this oppurtunity to apologise for my earlier negative and at times quite insulting remarks at you and your views on US Indices.
Neways i am looking to add more of the stock in question here as some really good fundamental development is about to take place in the stock.I hold an insignificant quantity and wanted to add a chunk of it if I could get a grip on the technical structure as I feel technicals help verify the authenticty of fundamental developments.But somehow couldnt decipher the wave structure and so decided to ask you.Your perspective would be of immense help to me.

Regards
VB

[DG]

VB,

Thanks and no problem.

The thing to remember overall with that wave structure is that if it is a wave-B in a Zigzag, upside potential is limited. The stock was obviously a high-flyer in past days, but may have disappointed shareholders, leading to a lot of overhead resistance on the chart. This may lead to a paradoxical situation where the stock sells off on good news after an initial pop. If it does head up and starts to reach that 61.8% retracement level and you are long, a hedge might be prudent to see how things evolve. Even a wave-B in a Zigzag can, like a wave-2 in an Impulse retrace up to 99% of the initial Impluse down, but that requires that it subdivide further and end at a lower high. Given the amount of time elapsed during what I think is wave-B already, that seems unlikely though.

Even if I am missing something and it is a Triangle off that top, going long should be rewarding, since the way that Triangle would be structured, after wave-E the "thrust" would be in an upward direction.

[nspolar]

Going to be interesting to see what RIG does on Monday.

This is now floating around. Originally posted on this blog, now pulled.

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/exclusive_transocean_modified_blow_out_protector

Andy I believe broke the Sarah Palin troopergate story.

"One of the biggest questions raised in every press account is why the BOP failed and why has it been so hard to cap. New pictures of the device apparently show why.

Records show that Cameron built the BOP and delivered it to Transocean. Before the BOP was put into service, it was reportedly altered by Transocean with no modification approval or notes.

The BOP was then installed, and the modifications are assumed to have prevented the part from operating properly.

These modifications were discovered by remote operated vehicles, whose pictures transmitted to engineers trying to establish why the BPO didn't activate, showed the part had been altered.

Thursday, top BP executives met with Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and the U.S. Coast Guard and told them about the tampered BOP and the fact that BP had no knowledge the device had been altered."

Long ways to go before all the correct facts come out on this.

ns

[marketman]

"BP, and any other involved company, must be shaking in their boots. And, whether the Obama administration has any blame, the public will still question their competence. The left may even be the angriest after they just acquiesced to opening up more off-shore drilling." - rc

The Obama Administration's proposal to allow drilling off the Atlantic Seaboard was NOTHING more than an "olive branch" to the GOP and a PROPOSAL. It was meaningless. Period.

[marketman]

"As a side note I was curious to see what Sarah Palin might have to say here. Seemingly quiet on that end."

Why would anyone care about Sarah Palin???

Not only did she unequivocally state that she was supportive and in favor of carbon emissions caps during the Presidential debates, only to do a complete 180 6-months later on her Facebook Page... but she QUIT on the people of the great State of Alaska to go on a book tour!

[Onlooker]

EWI has so totally and completely discredited themselves over the last 9 months or so that anything they have to say is not worth listening to. Could they finally end up lucking into a right call? Sure, I suppose so. But they've been thoroughly lost and let their "analysis" be driven by their bearish bias to a terrible fault.

We'll get a correction of some sort, I agree. But it won't be the start of a primary trend change, I'm pretty sure. But I'll certainly take my cues from someone else other than EWI, that's for sure.

[The Alaskan Leftist Moonbats Who Didn't Get A Chance To Sue Palin Without Cause]

but she QUIT on the people of the great State of Alaska to go on a book tour!

Yeah, we demand she come back and finish out her term of office so we can sue her for some inane reason!

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1642957/sarah_palin_defending_many_lawsuits.html

[robert]

On the oil leak/spill in the Gulf I watched a program last evening about the Exxon Valdez and all the legal wrangling that occurred for years afterward. Statements made publicly by Exxon at the time of the spill (not to worry, we know what we're doing, after all we're Exxon) provide an interesting contrast with what actually transpired. For those interested the original judgment was $5,000 against captain Joseph Hazlewood and $5B (punitive) against Exxon. Appeal after appeal followed with the Supreme Court finally reducing the award a couple of years ago to one tenth its original size. Meanwhile there's an estimated 55 tons of oil still lurking several feet below the beaches in Prince William Sound. Sadly the interest Exxon avoided paying on the original judgment during the appeals process was re-invested into operations which some claim have earned the company $26B in profits since the spill. Gulf coast residents you have my deepest sympathies.

[robert]

On the comparative merits of pedaling, walking or driving I found this article:

http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html

[DG]

robert,

I think this is a better analysis, where at least you can see the assumptions that went into the conclusion.

http://ideas.4brad.com/holy-cow-walking-consumes-more-gasoline-driving

The main point being that people's bodies don't run on fairy dust, it takes food (and that means industrialized food manufacturing) to power bicycles and walk.

I can't find the original interview that I saw making this comparison, but I'm almost positive it was with David MacKay, a physicist at Cambridge University whose done a ton of work comparing different energy sources and their efficiency.

If human bodies were very efficient at converting potential energy into kinetic energy, we'd never have had any need to invent machines, would we? We could just be like Popeye and down some spinach and do whatever needed to be done.

[rc]

robert: a snip from your article:
"One hundred calories can power a cyclist for three miles, but it would only power a car 280 feet (85 meters)!"

I'd add that the efficiency of an SUV/Truck in congested metro areas is much worse in practice. And, there are hidden costs such as the current oil spill, air and ground pollution; accidents and injuries; the mesh of roadways and loss of green space; sedentary health effects and on and on.

Of course we can't do away with cars, but we should have a rich availability of transportation alternatives. We should stop subsidizing the use (waste) of petroleum products by hiding the true costs and allow beneficial changes to occur through market dynamics.

[nspolar]

Starting to add my 3rd and final tranch of commodity shorts via $DJUSBM (short). Putting in trailing stop on first batch to guarantee some profit on that one.

This is looking more and more like a major trend shift here to me.

As mentioned still watching Gold, me thinks it is close to big short time there as well.

ns

[nspolar]

The miners and especically NEM are getting hammered pretty good here this morning.

The LT chart on NEM is quite interesting, my opinion. I have wondered for example if NEM could be in some big long ED that started back in about 2006.

ns

[DG]

Of course we can't do away with cars, but we should have a rich availability of transportation alternatives. We should stop subsidizing the use (waste) of petroleum products by hiding the true costs and allow beneficial changes to occur through market dynamics.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that this was the situation when the automobile was introduced. CLEARLY, via the Darwinian process of "survival of the best adapted", the automobile won.

We don't live in a society where people can take 4 hours to make a trip by bike that takes 30 minutes by car. Besides, what are you going to do, ride a bike to a business meeting and then sit in the meeting dripping sweat all over everyone and generally smelling up the room?

[Sherman McCoy]

Kudos. You obviously have a knack for catching the exact top and bottom of the market. I've actually never met anyone who has a 100% win ratio. How can I invest?

[Hank Wernicki]

REPOST:

Carl, here's the clue : IF the lows from Friday hold then a nice rally ( parent bottom 10m )

Below that level ( reversal ) the selling continues for Monday from its previous fractal.

We may know more on the ES session for Sunday.

[rc]

"CLEARLY, via the Darwinian process of "survival of the best adapted", the automobile won."

DG: The car "won" because the gov't has shepherded and subsidized its use by creating a vast network of roads and by allowing other costs to be passed on (hidden). Read up on how mass transit in CA was abandoned in the early part of this century.

Anyway, the point isn't that the car isn't useful, but that it isn't the best solution in many cases. And, in the case of sole occupant drivers in SUV's and Trucks, creeping along for an hour to get 5 miles, with all the attendant costs including, indirectly, the oil spill in the Gulf, it is clearly a poor choice. One that will not evade Darwinian consequences, eventually.

[vipul garg]

Hank,
where are we with regards to 1000 -3000 pt decline. on track ? or see something different?

[DG]

DG: The car "won" because the gov't has shepherded and subsidized its use by creating a vast network of roads and by allowing other costs to be passed on (hidden). Read up on how mass transit in CA was abandoned in the early part of this century.

Anyway, the point isn't that the car isn't useful, but that it isn't the best solution in many cases. And, in the case of sole occupant drivers in SUV's and Trucks, creeping along for an hour to get 5 miles, with all the attendant costs including, indirectly, the oil spill in the Gulf, it is clearly a poor choice. One that will not evade Darwinian consequences, eventually.

"Many cases"?

Yeah, and the reason the government "sheparded" it was because it enabled all kinds of economic growth. You can't really make a "ceteris paribus" argument that we'd have anything even resembling the technological progress we have had during the automobile era had we relied on "mass transit" the entire time. The automobile was a linchpin in creating the economic growth of the post-WWII American economy. Take the car out of the equation and 2010 America would probably look a heck of a lot like 1910 America. I don't know what kind of work you do, but if it weren't for petro-chemicals, I know what kind of work you would probably do: you'd be a farmer, like just about everyone else.

The bottom line is that back when people had a choice between continuing the pre-automobile age and entering the automobile age, they chose to enter the automobile age. Period. The only people who lost out were the buggy whip manufacturers and assorted Luddites. Now, one can make arguments that are based on the end of cheap oil and that's a different point.

[yelnick]

Robert, my two cents on your topic:
- the car is the greatest mass transportation device ever created
- it gets you from where you are to where you want to be without delay
- unfortunately it depends on a magic elixir, oil, which comes from unstable places
- hence a transition to a better transport technology - electric cars - is prudent
= the faster we get going, the less we will depend on those nasty places to supply our oil
- rather than raise the price of usage (carbon tax) which impacts the broad economy
- or rely on rituals with little substance like CAFE rules
= we should begin a program of transition:
(1) heavy trucks pushed to natural gas
(2) cars pushed to electric/fuel cells
(3) use natural gas as the transitional fuel
(4) higher State-level gas tax to be used to improve car infrastructure (roads, bridges,, and the transition)

[Kong]

'm not talking speed, I'm talking energy-efficiency. A car engine is way more efficient than a human body.

I think something lost in all this is the assumption that people who propel themselves by one means or another will consume significantly more calories. I think generally this is completely untrue, and the result is someone who uses less energy and is more fit. In a society where two thirds are overweight and one third is obese, this isn't a bad thing.

[DG]

I think something lost in all this is the assumption that people who propel themselves by one means or another will consume significantly more calories. I think generally this is completely untrue, and the result is someone who uses less energy and is more fit. In a society where two thirds are overweight and one third is obese, this isn't a bad thing.

Look, you can't "overcome" human physiology just by wishing it weren't a constraint! Yes, there are marginal differences in the amount of calories consumed depending on weight and someone who is obese requires more calories/mile than Lance Armstrong. OK, got it. That still isn't enough.

Again, think about the number of man-hours spend poring over alternative engine designs, refining the tools used in the manufacture of engines, improving the processing of raw crude oil into gasoline, etc. and then think of your own body and how relatively crude its design is. When you eat a meal, about half of it comes out the other end as waste, for crying out loud. How friggin' efficient can our bodies be? Compare that to the amount of waste put out by an automobile, relative to the inputs. If an engine were as inefficient as the human body, about half of the gas you put into your car would come out in a slightly modified form from the tailpipe, no? CLEARLY, it doesn't.

I can't even believe that this is a "controversial" point, the answer is so obvious to anyone who even spends two seconds thinking about it.

[Kong]

You're completely missing the point. Person A consumes 3000 calories a day and walks 2 miles to work. Person B also consumes 3000 calories daily and drives his fat lazy ass those 2 miles. B's energy consumption is more than A's. Not that difficult.

[DG]

You're completely missing the point. Person A consumes 3000 calories a day and walks 2 miles to work. Person B also consumes 3000 calories daily and drives his fat lazy ass those 2 miles. B's energy consumption is more than A's. Not that difficult.

Yeah, that's not really the topic under discussion, though.

Congratulations on proving a point no one was trying to disprove.

[robert]

DG I'm not ready to give up my one and only vehicle (16 year Suburban in excellent running order) for Luddism just yet but I have chosen to live in an area where my family can walk, ride a bike or use mass transit to get to work, school and shopping. I'm just advocating a more judicious use of the internal combustion engine. I treat my vehicle as a back up system and feel all the better for substituting walking or peddling whenever possible. Not to mention the economic benefits of having to perform extreme unction on my wallet less frequently! I see far too many vehicles with a single driver and/or speeding these days. Jack rabbit starts and stops use a lot more gas plus added wear and tear to brakes, transmissions etc. Then there's the safety factor. I only hope more folks can strike a balance otherwise the ultimate destination is going to be a very hot place with hand baskets the principal means of conveyance.

[JT]

Where are all of the PERMA-BEARS today who were warning of yet another CRASH???

[DG]

robert,

I am a huge fan of research dedicated to taking human decision-making out of driving, a la the "I, Robot" movie from a few years ago, where actually controlling your car manually was almost a forgotten skill. I have driven more than 2 decades without so much as a fender-bender and only 1 speeding ticket, so I'm actually a pretty good driver and I would love for the driving to be automated. That would increase miles per gallon by an appreciable amount, even with today's engine technology, as well as nearly eliminating the "ripple effect" of one bad driver on rush hour. I'd also love to see more GPS systems linked in to local traffic monitors enabling drivers to take alternate routes when traffic conditions warrant. So, trust me, I am not a fan of the current situation, but that doesn't mean I will ignore the science behind the combustion engine vs. the human body vis-a-vis getting from Point A to Point B.

[Mamma Boom Boom]

Last Tuesday I predicted a mult-day rally in stocks. Friday I said it would run thru Monday. As of this minute, I think it will extend thru Tuesday. But, it's getting old and much riskier.

You buy your ticket, you take your chances...

[Kong]

Congratulations on proving a point no one was trying to disprove.

What!? Here's what you said earlier in the tread:

More walking equals more need for calories, which come from growing more food, which means more petrochemicals for fertilizer.

[Wave Rust]

natural gas in tractor trailers is only one fuel tank fire and explosion away from being abandoned for those vehicles.

gasoline fires can be easily put out. natural gas distillates like LP are so dangerous that no real or effective means has been devised to put out the fire of a compressed gas tank.

once a fire statrts you have to clear the area and wait for the fuel to burn off enough to create the conditions for the explosion. These are scary fires and explosions.

imagine the fire on an interstate with a punctured compressed gas tank punctured. It is just like a blow torch.

wave rust

[DG]

"More walking equals more need for calories, which come from growing more food, which means more petrochemicals for fertilizer."

Dude, you deliberately set up the comparison in a non-sensical way that had nothing to do with my point. Obviously, if someone eats 3,000 calories a day AND uses a car, they are consuming more energy than someone who consumes 3,000 calories and DOESN'T use a car. The point was a comparison between walking and cars in and of themselves and the incremental energy needs of each in getting from Point A to Point B.

Hell, I can construct a nonsense scenario in which someone consumes 0 calories a day AND walks. Woohoo! I've now solved the world's energy problems! Only, I actually haven't because such a scenario could only go for a few days until the person drops dead.

The discussion was which is more efficient at converting inputs into energy outputs, a car or a human body. The answer is: a car. This is not a question like, "Who is a better painter, Picasso or Jasper Johns?", it's a factual question and has a factual answer.

[Don]

DG, Robert made the comment that Less driving = more walking. His point was that someone who chooses to walk from A to B is consuming less energy and you challenged that assertion based on the efficiency of an automobile engine versus the human body. If that person is not eating more, your argument is irrelevent. I suggest you go back and reread the thread. By the way, how tall are you and how much do you weigh?

[DG]

If that person is not eating more, your argument is irrelevent.

Ugh. Man, the "eating more"/"not eating more" is the irrelevant part. Beyond the needs for basic sedentary bodily functions (about 70-100 calories/hour) you simply can't increase activity without a corresponding need to increase calorie consumption, so saying that a person is going to substitute walking for driving, in any practical sense, is to say that they are going to increase calorie consumption. We're not talking about a fat guy who starts walking after work to lose a few pounds, we're talking about shifting commutes from automobiles to walking. Once people lose the love handles, what are they going to do, just waste away to nothing by having caloric deficit every day ad infinitum?

Anyway, you guys can walk and starve yourselves to death to save the planet, I don't care. Just don't be surprised when, if everyone decides to do the same thing, we don't need MORE petrochemicals to grow MORE food, which means we need to use MORE energy than before when everyone was driving. I can't be any more plain than that, so, if you're not getting the point yet, I guess I'll just have to wait until your car-free Utopia comes to pass to tell you "I told you this would happen".

[Hank Wernicki]

Being delayed --- high was NOT taken out

http://twitter.com/Frac_Man

40 points the last 2 days

Hank

[Zendo]

Looks like the all knowing DG is having another day of psychosis attack again today.

[DG]

"Looks like the all knowing DG is having another day of psychosis attack again today.

Posted by: Zendo | Monday, May 03, 2010 at 01:38 PM"

Yeah, that must be it. I just made up the fact that the human body is less efficient than an automobile engine just to prove how "all-knowing" I am.

Get a clue.

[Zendo]

Sorry typo, DG is having a pyschosis breakdown, finally admitting he is not that all knowing but not declining he could be a nutcase.

Thanks for your clarification.

[DG]

"Sorry typo, DG is having a pyschosis breakdown, finally admitting he is not that all knowing but not declining he could be a nutcase."

From the amount of times you make this accusation about me being a psychotic, I'm imagining you think it is either accurate or somehow hurts my feelings. I assure you it is neither. It's just kind of an odd thing to keep saying, actually, since you're neither a qualified psychiatric professional capable of making such a diagnosis nor am I hurt by the random insults of strangers online.