Seriously though, as I’ve stated before, this is intended as a longer term heads up. The markets have demonstrated consistently throughout history that they move in cycles, and this is a time to be thoughtful about protecting financial assets rather than chasing returns, at both the individual and the government level.

Again I question whether anyone can predict market fluctuations confidently. Do you drink beer, Steve? I’ll buy you a pitcher at the Old Town if this prediction comes true, if you agree to buy me one if it doesn’t.

From last Friday’s Elliott Wave Theorist newsletter:

“The May 22 issue of EWT called for a peak in the Dow on that day, and stocks turned down immediately. The August 2 issue of EWFF called for a peak on that day, and again stocks fell immediately. These were the right calls to make. After a one-day new high on the Fed’s ‘no-taper’ day of September 18, the Dow fell again. Despite lots of noise, the Dow remains below both its May and August peaks. …

“By this analysis, the S&P should make its final high today or Monday, no higher than 1749. The Dow Industrial Average, shown at the bottom of the chart, is lagging significantly, suggesting that our previous calls will hold and the Dow’s October rally is just wave [ii circle--SB] in a new bear market.

“Wave c, which will be the biggest decline in U.S. stock market history, is coming one way or another. Right now it seems it should start next week in most averages and resume in the Dow. Important: If instead the S&P significantly surpasses [1749--SB], the near-term bearish potential of this form will be immediately negated, and some other pattern will lead us to a later top.”

This is roughly the scenario I shared back in January that Dan referred to in #6 (and which obviously developed differently after that point). For those interested in seeing if the predictive ability of the EWP holds up in the short term, the drop that follows an ending diagonal typically brings the price back to the beginning of the fifth wave (in this case for the S&P that would be the June 24, 2013 low of about 1573) in roughly one third to one half the time of the development of the fifth wave, which was roughly four months. So watch for the S&P to drop below 1573 by some time between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Note that the threshold for tonight’s motion to reconsider – because it conforms with the council rule on reconsideration (that a motion for reconsideration must be brought at the same or next regular meeting) – is a simple six-vote majority. The council has in the past taken a vote first on suspending the rules (requiring a 2/3 majority of those present, that is, 8 members if all councilmembers attend), then entertaining a motion to reconsider, and then considering the matter at hand. That happened on July 6, 2010, when the rule to be suspended was the one about who can bring back the question for reconsideration. On that occasion, with 10 councilmembers present, seven votes in favor of suspending the rules – to allow Stephen Rapundalo to bring back Heritage Row for reconsideration, even though he was not on the prevailing side – were enough to achieve suspension of the rules. The motion on reconsideration then passed, also on a 7-3 vote. And then the vote on Heritage Row failed on a 7-3 vote, because Heritage Row needed an eight-vote majority, given the successful petition that raised the threshold for approval of that PUD.

From her LinkedIn page, for example: “We [at The Automatic Earth web site] began by predicting the financial crisis of 2008/09 and have since been providing readers with the tools to prepare for harder times to come.” Her CV doesn’t invoke any doubts in my mind about her qualifications to make the case that she does, nor does the content of her writings and talks.

You might also look into how EWP expert Robert Prechter, Jr. called the top in 2000, the bottom in 2003, the top in 2007, and the bottom in 2009. He’s occasionally been wrong on timing in the past, but he also predicted the bull market that began in the early 1980′s when everyone else was pessimistic. He’s been widely dismissed, it seems, but I suspect that that’s because professional investors would rather maintain their advantage or simply due to their own proclivity to herding and the (mass) psychology that drives it.

“We may need to deploy huge solar farms to power the extraction of oil, but we will certainly not forgo fossil fuels entirely.”

Those solar farms couldn’t be deployed without lots of oil and other fossil fuels to power their production, transport and installation. I actually made that point in #4, including how it’s very unlikely that the solar industry will develop sufficiently before the economy collapses and we’re unable to adequately invest in it.

We most certainly will forego fossil fuels when the laws of physics dictate that we will. (By the way, I’m not a physicist either, but it was my major in the LSA Honors College at U-M for 2 1/2 years before I transferred to study ecology in the School of Natural Resources—now “and Ecology”.) Of course, if you want to engage in speculation on the development of liquid-fuel thorium reactors (that’s right, nuclear), I’ll go along. (I wonder if anyone reading this has even heard of that technology. Maybe we can ask the city to invest in it.)

I agree that this divestment resolution doesn’t mean much. But the logic behind the resolution is sound. Characterizing it as a means for supporters to feel good insults their integrity, and I think you might consider your motive for doing that. If rather you mean to question the sincerity of our city government, go right ahead. Every question is a step toward the truth. Mainly, though, my comments have been about the bigger picture of circumstances that we’ll face as a community.

And yet you go on to make your own predictions without basis.

You’ve got it backwards, though, Jack. The financial assets are going to lose most of their value first, then the fossil fuel extraction will come to an end.

But then, the randomness of events that Dan referred to might mess with that scenario, so how about we argue about it for a few more years until we see how it plays out rather than preparing for some version of it? At least we’d get to still feel right in the meantime.

On second thought, I’m going to keep preparing. Maybe I’m done sounding the alarm, though.

Another parliamentary inquiry: Am I correct in supposing that the motion to reconsider must first pass, and then the main motion reconsidered? So a person who voted for the item in the past might choose not to reconsider without voting on the substance again?

In other words, government only leads in political matters. In other matters we are left to take the lead ourselves (or not).

I appreciate the effort of those calling for and calling attention to the divestment decision. My wife and I divested from all non-home-energy-efficiency and non-self-reliance (e.g., fruit trees) investments a couple years ago based in part on the thinking that any such investment, whether directly in fossil fuel companies or not (and, as noted by Nancy Walker at the meeting, they’re impossible to avoid in an indexed fund, and even in some so-called socially responsible ones as well), would promote economic growth, which currently requires the combustion of fossil fuels and the subsequent GHG emissions. (The exceptions were some retirement funds that we’re not able to withdraw, and those are in short-term US Treasuries funds. We also invest almost exclusively in local farmers by buying their produce.)

Upcoming investments of retirement funds at our home include an efficient electric, air-source heat-pump water heater (to replace an old gas water heater), an air-source heat pump (to replace our old A/C unit and gas boiler)—we’ll be off natural gas at that point—and then a rooftop PV array. I suppose we could have left our money in the market and enjoyed the 30%+ return on an indexed fund and then watched it lose all that value and more in the next couple years without cashing it out at the top, but we took the “risk” of bypassing that “opportunity”.

interested Chronicle readers and your friends, neighbors, etc. have an open invitation to visit our still-in-development permaculture system. Just email me to make arrangements: sbean at berginc daht kahm. There’s also a chance that we’ll be hosting a tour here during the U-M Permaculture LAUNCH Weekend on Sept. 28. TBD by the organizers.

I would, of course, be interested in any previous prediction where Ms. Foss made an important prediction about matters similar to her beliefs about the consequences of “net energy” on oil production. Has she ever used her methodology to predict something that thereafter actually happened?

I think that if your prediction that within the next few years we will see energy companies “come to an end” (per your comment #1), the issue of fossil fuel divestment will not matter. Complete cessation of fossil fuel production will have such a devastating impact on the entire world economy that no investment would be safe.

I tend to agree with Mr. Armentrout that we will always have some oil production. We may need to deploy huge solar farms to power the extraction of oil, but we will certainly not forgo fossil fuels entirely. And, that very expensive extraction of oil will cause very high fuel prices that will generate very high oil company profits.

Divestment will not alter the circumstances that you believe will lead to the end of oil companies. Divestment will not protect our investments from the collapse of the world’s economy that would follow the cessation of oil production. Divestment would just make some locals feel good and allow them to claim to be more “green” than others.

That item has now been added to the online agenda: “Motion to Reconsider Fossil Fuel Resolution”