Comments on: Is The H&S Really Over??

By: vidosole

vidosole — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:15:08 +0000

Hi Fuji,

congrats about the excellent pick over SPX.
I did follow your double calendar play 400/430 with Google and it played out not bad – average gain of 27,9%. My wide Iron condor on Google also played nice, so generally I could not complain of GOOG this time.
Thanks for your idea about the calendar play.
With many high flyers (offering fat premium) going to post earnings this week, do you have in mind some earnings play? I think about AAPL, BJS, CAT, FCX, UTX, MO, ISRG, SNDK, AMZN, NUE, SPWRA (and next week FSLR), BIDU.

By: vidosole

vidosole — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:15:08 +0000

Hi Fuji,

By: blahblah2

blahblah2 — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:33:11 +0000

I think it just suggests that humans aren't prone to change things until it becomes urgent in some manner. Hitting the pocketbook hard is one of the more gentle ways of becoming urgent.

By: BrassMonkyBalls

BrassMonkyBalls — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:02:31 +0000

if you're talking BTU's yes I agree. If you're talking offsetting fossil fuel generation then its legit. If we're not worried about the environment then we have plenty of coal. We can grow wind by putting up more turbines. Its not about more wind, it about putting up the turbines and accurately predicting the generation, and being able to dispatch the power, which is what we're working on and getting better at doing. Enough of this though and I'll check out theoildrum.com

By: EDC

EDC — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:47:24 +0000

uhm… without a medium of exchange which derives value such as “money”
there is no means to pay for supply which emotion pays for demand.

It does not matter when, what, if, or however peaked?!>?
It's the money… and an effecient medium of exchange.

By: disrespekt

disrespekt — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:10:37 +0000

I can't agree that derivatives were a “problem.”

They were merely a late-stage attempt to drive needed credit growth that could not be supported by the real economy. CDSs represented a backbone for synthetic debt instruments.

By: disrespekt

disrespekt — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:08:22 +0000

There is no "problem" about Peak Oil, dude.

It already happened. In wells, fields, nations, the world. It's not a theory, and it's not open for debate. It is part of the physical world.

Won't have "true" peak oil? What? We already achieved peak. C&C peaked in 2005, with a subsequent liquids peak in 2008.

Those who think that interest rates and imaginary shit like credit somehow have "control" over the real world are in for a rude awakening. NO amount of money can make Cantarell come back. Oil is a REAL thing; it exists with or without "money." Nations can trade in barter and they already are, with or without debt-money.

The problem is that the bankers and economists (parasite idiots) got the mistaken impression that their silly theories and interest rates were what caused growth. It was always energy. We rode an energy supply growth curve that has hit a maxima.

By: rhae

rhae — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:04:11 +0000

Dollar over head supply looks tough… DX.F futures 79.69 my line to watch for now… needs to get thru 81.25 for blue sky

By: disrespekt

disrespekt — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:59:24 +0000

Wind? I wish. Wind is not growable; it does not get windier as our demand for it grows.

At this point, as the energy we get from oil decreases, we have a two-fold problem. We must replace lost oil BTUs AND we must provide for the additional growth in BTUs that the growth economy demands, IF we are to have the same type of economic reality that we've had for the past 300 years.

To anyone that is interested in this topic, I suggest theoildrum.com. The EROI on wind, solar, nuclear, etc, all PALES in comparison to oil. I mean, it's not even remotely CLOSE. Wind is not even remotely a substitute for oil.

By: molecool

molecool — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:54:25 +0000

¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨
¨°º¤ø„¸ N E W „ø¤º°¨
¸„ø¤º°¨ P O S T ``°º¤ø„¸
¸„ø¤º°¨¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°º¤ø„¸