Fear The Chorizo

In addition to the full NTC, kind of a gaping omission of the article to neglect mentioning Yelich shattering his kneecap by fouling a ball off his leg in mid September 2019 as a potential reason why his production at the plate dramatically changed since then. Not to mention the fact he's consistently had back issues, which tend to not get better with age. At the time Yelich's new contract was announced, I was happy with the deal but wondered why both sides would make the move when they did. From Yelich's side, why lock in a longterm team-friendly discount after what was basically back to back MVP-level seasons? From the Brewers' side, why do that deal right as COVID is blowing up stateside and threatening the 2020 season and why not wait at least until you can see similar onfield production after his knee injury when you still had him under team control on his prior deal for several more seasons?

In addition to the full NTC, kind of a gaping omission of the article to neglect mentioning Yelich shattering his kneecap by fouling a ball off his leg in mid September 2019 as a potential reason why his production at the plate dramatically changed since then. Not to mention the fact he's consistently had back issues, which tend to not get better with age. At the time Yelich's new contract was announced, I was happy with the deal but wondered why both sides would make the move when they did. From Yelich's side, why lock in a longterm team-friendly discount after what was basically back to back MVP-level seasons? From the Brewers' side, why do that deal right as COVID is blowing up stateside and threatening the 2020 season and why not wait at least until you can see similar onfield production after his knee injury when you still had him under team control on his prior deal for several more seasons?

SBF should be in jail and there needs to be an investigation into everyone involved. But of course neither of those things will happen. Particularly with all his friend$ in Wa$hington. Crypto is just so uncertain because it hasn't been around long enough through true global economic downturns. Forecasting what happens with it, whether the whole works craters or seeing certain cryptocurrencies skyrocket in value is all speculation at this point.

Haven't seen too many commercials lately pimping crypto exchanges...figured it was due to election season ad buys but it sure seems like it's alot more than that in light of FTX crashing and burning.

all that's missing is a trade to somehow get Cooper Hummel in the heart of the Brewers order and giving him a 14-yr $137.5-million dollar extension with $98M in Kohls cash.

It is when factoring what type of house you get. A $300K mortgage at 3% would be roughly a monthly $1,250 loan payment for a 30 yr fixed. That's where that rate was about 1 year ago. Now with that rate much closer to 7%, the same $300K mortgage on a 30 yr fixed basis would cost someone about $2,000 a month. To get the same monthly mortgage payment with a 7% loan vs 3%, the same buyer needs to find a home $190K less in value to move into, which for most housing markets is an entirely different type of property in terms of location/size/etc. You can't really refinance until rates get back down to a level that makes sense to do so....and also when your home value gives you enough equity to justify a refi - assuming home values decline and it takes a significant amount of time for mortgage rates to actually drop, new mortgage holders may be stuck with a much pricier loan alot longer than what makes any sort of financial sense.

If you're looking to downsize, or move from a market with higher real estate values to one with lower, and if you've got a significant amount of equity in the place you already own, it's not a bad time to sell and make a move. Now is a terrible time for 1st time homebuyers and people looking to upsize their home in the same area due to a growing family and for people with minimal equity who would need a new mortgage.

We may just be looking at things a bit differently because there's value in renewables where appropriate, they're just not going to be able to replace fossil fuels on a macro/global scale unless the focus is on personal vehicles only. Get EV use of personal vehicles in the US up to 50% and it would still not be close to the total amount of energy required for overall transportation and construction energy needs for this country alone - planes, ships, freight (truck and rail), and all sorts of heavy equipment still need diesel/jet fuel/oil/etc. I saw Pepsi ordered a bunch of EV trucks that it will be able to use between its distribution centers equipped with charging stations that will be able to have make routine trips back and forth - those trucks are now a couple thousand pounds over highway limits when fully loaded because of the battery weight but they're allowed to do so because they're EVs. Scale that up to a majority of semi trucks and then road construction needs to be dramatically re-engineered. Concrete and asphalt pavement happen to require a ton of fossil fuels for building materials or energy to recycle/construct. Solar power in northern climates require alot more O&M than people realize, particularly for utility-scale developments - plus solar intensity is diminished 6 months of the year because of the sun being on the wrong side of the equator, requiring larger panel arrays to generate the same amount of energy than if it was constructed further to the south. Also, snow and ice cover can both prevent panels from generating energy and damage them. There needs to be a ton of regulatory pressure on how to manage solar panel waste so it's actually recycled instead of landfilled or incinerated if there's actually a significant environmental benefit. Mining and manufacturing of the panel aren't eco-friendly and generate their own toxic waste streams that need to be dealt with. Once panel arrays are constructed and generating electricity, they're pretty benign and very eco-friendly until they stop working. Solar panels don't last forever, and frankly haven't been used long enough on a utility scale for their waste streams to become a concern, but that's right around the corner. Right now just throwing the voltaic cells in a landfill or waste a ton of energy incinerating them after stripping the aluminum frame and electrical wiring off it is the preferred method because it's a ton cheaper than trying to separate and reuse those materials in new panel manufacturing. Not reusing that voltaic cell material means more of it is needed from mining when making new cells. https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/Solar-panels-face-recycling-challenge-photovoltaic-waste/100/i18#:~:text=PV panels contain toxic materials,these resources are mostly wasted.

First you have to make alternative energy to be the cheaper option and convenient. And those two reasons are why renewables/green energy will always play second fiddle. They key is finding and developing something that can replace fossil fuels on a global scale, not just be a niche market in fully developed and wealthy countries who've farmed out much of their heavy manufacturing and mining needs overseas. I can see an alternative to fossil fuels that will become both cheaper and more convenient with further innovation in nuclear energy in the next century if it is allowed to happen. Hydrogen, as a fuel source, is one of those holy grail options if its industrial production can happen without using fossil fuels. Currently, most industrialized hydrogen production uses natural gas as an electrolysis fuel source and it's not a very efficient process. However, hydrogen could readily be made using the heat generated within nuclear reactors and the use of various catalysts to break down methane into hydrogen gas and solid carbon (solid carbon being a much more desireable and environmentally friendly by-product than CO2 or CO).

Otherwise, I don't know what to say. The political dilemma is that we need massive CO2 emissions reductions while not making people feel like the quality of life has been disrupted. So EVs it is. Until the two most populous countries feel like wanting to play the green energy game it frankly doesn't matter much. China currently has roughly 1,100 coal plants operating with more coming online, and India has 285 with many more in the works. US currently has about 240 plants and declining, at the moment. Huge populations and demand for energy are big factors for all that fossil fuel generating capacity, to be sure....but in the case of China so is the fact it's solidly the manufacturing capital of the world, and that includes most of the components used to actually generate green energy like solar panels, wind turbine components, batteries, etc. Transportation does indeed create CO2 emissions, and there are ways to at least keep that total amount constant across an increasing population by constantly improving ICE emissions and getting more EVs and other options on the road - but heavy manufacturing and construction industries lean on fossil fuel energy and will continue to do so longterm. I think a solid alternative may be to pursue increased nuclear generating capacity for manufacturing hubs.

2023 is 2 months away, so it'd be pretty nice having Keystone as an option to help with increased domestic demand right about now without leaning on OPEC, to be sure. And yes, oil companies cut production on their own when demand was intentionally squashed 2.5 years ago due to COVID, and many drilling operations actually went under because of it. In March of 2020 when domestic demand cratered, there was a proposal to buy and add almost 80 million barrels of oil to the strategic petroleum reserve to bring it to its storage capacity when oil was hovering around $35/barrel and the reserve had about 635 million barrels stored. That proposal was blocked by Congress stating it was a $3B bailout to oil and drilling companies. That amount of oil would cost about $7.5 billion to buy now and add to a reserve that's headed below 400 million barrels for the first time since 1984, if it hasn't already dropped below that point. Demand has been steadily growing since then, but domestic producers really haven't been able to react to it and frankly have zero incentive to do so. Oil and drilling companies have also been hamstrung in search of financing to conduct exploration or bring new wells online for the past 20 or so months.

Not that Venezuela did anything to deserve getting sanctions lifted, but maybe it shaves 25 cents a gallon off at the pump for a few more weeks...SMH Also, Venezuela and Russia are among the heaviest polluters when extracting oil due to both poor system controls (venezuela) and having oil that is dirtier/nastier to refine (russia). Its just sad things have gotten to where they are when there is a much better option domestically.

So is the million or so barrels a day being siphoned out of the strategic petroleum reserve that kept prices from going much higher earlier this year - that looks to continue at least until early November when the election ends and the reserve is down to a pretty precarious level and is no longer an option to keep drawing from. This has been going on for ~6 months already, and there hasn't been anything proactive done to improve supply and prevent another price jump when it has to stop and the reserve actually needs to be replenished (putting even more strain on worldwide demand). Having OPEC state they are reducing the cap on their production is a shock to the market, maybe not immediately spiking oil prices everywhere but inevitably it will. Yesterday's announcement of pulling another 10 million barrels of oil from the reserve into November would put us right at November 10th or 11th on the calendar - ironic to nobody I would hope. The biggest problem with OPECs production cap is it's too low to satisfy global demand when non-member countries are not producing close to the levels they're capable of. Combine that with the fact the US currently has sanctions on several prominent members, any sort of OPEC-wide production cap decrease stings. It's more complex, because limited refining capacity is also a huge factor in this (countries could pump like crazy and refineries wouldn't come close to matching an increased output of finished petro products even if they wanted to). I don't think oil prices will go insanely high, because the global recession is going to do a decent job of squashing demand - which is a really sucky way for gas prices to stagnate between $4-$5 a gallon indefinitely.

The Fed is definitely going to have to rethink its rate hike if oil goes north of $110 a barrel. The only way it won't is if the global economy craters despite all the artificial propping up that is already happening. I saw where some European countries are printing out money to reimburse businesses who can't make enough money to survive selling the goods/services that have had price controls implemented to try and curb inflation on the consumer end. If what you mean is the Fed should increase the monthly rate hikes as oil starts inevitably surging this fall (at a time of year when it typically drops, by the way), than I'd agree with you. At some point there needs to be an acute correction in either domestic energy policy and refining capacity to dramatically increase supply, or significant rate hikes that dramatically drive down demand to get things back to a sustainable and less volatile point. Most likely both need to happen but unfortunately neither probably will anytime soon, making the problem bigger and more painful to dig out of whenever these changes finally do get implemented. It isn't just for gas and diesel to fuel vehicles and transport goods, btw...it's all the other goods and materials that require oil as a raw material to produce.

Interesting....something like that would be a possibility if there were a significant generation source nearby that would be worth building a large battery storage facility. Might still be some limitations on access for equipment and how a battery storage facility would be constructed. Most of the current BESS units are built into shipping container-type enclosures for portability, but they weigh a ton and need some serious hoisting equipment during installation. Doesn't mean a BESS unit couldn't be built at the actual facility in a different configuration that fits the space though. Despite being naturally ventilated, I'd imagine it would still take a ton of engineering controls to make an underground mine space a practical site for battery storage due to the hazards they create when things go wrong or break down. Lithium battery fires are no joke, and a big issue with large scale battery facilities is having adequate fire protection measures and spacing for the battery units so that when a fire might start in one cell it wouldn't just wipe out the entire facility. That is much easier to do on a former farm field adjacent to a solar array and/or electrical substation, which is why we're seeing those facilities being constructed at those locations first. It takes tons of water to essentially block a lithium fire from spreading until the area currently burning runs out of fuel - all the while that fire is emitting some really nasty and toxic gases that can also turn into an explosion and/or inhalation hazard in enclosed spaces.

Yes, there's actually a lot. several factors related to fire codes, ventilation, ease of access for ongoing maintenance activities, and spacing needed for connection line runs would make trying to bury battery storage systems below the frost line in effort to set them in an environment that has a steadier state temperature very costly and frankly unsafe unless $$ was no object. Also, anytime you put something electrical in the subsurface there needs to be additional measures for storm water management and at times shallow groundwater so you don't create an electrical catastrophe. Running conduit and electrical wiring subgrade is much different than what it would take to safely install massive lithium battery units underground and provide necessary access for ongoing maintenance.

So much for just plugging those EVs in at home at night being ideal - although I think the premise is that a much larger fleet of EVs charging at night means most of the energy they receive comes from fossil fuel generation with how the grid is currently configured: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/339858-stanford-study-warns-against-ev-charging-at-night There will need to be a ton more improvements to the existing grid well beyond anything currently planned, and that includes increased generating capacity from reliable energy sources that don't require massive battery storage, to support a larger fleet of EVs - just building a ton of charging stations isn't the answer (at least it is a start), particularly in geographical areas like Wisconsin that are not ideal for renewables due to inconsistent wind and extended periods of cold weather/snow.... FWIW, I work with a handful of BESS developers who are trying to add grid-scale battery storage infrastructure across midwest states to support existing and planned renewable projects, mostly solar but also some wind in very rural areas where grid loss kills the actual amount of energy delivered by remote wind power to population centers - lithium batteries perform quite a bit better than older lead-acid battery materials in the cold, but midwest winters are still a very big hurdle to clear for diminished reliance on coal/gas/nuclear in the region.

Unless people are relocating geographically to an area with significantly lower home/property values than their current location, or are newfound empty nesters looking to sell their now oversized home and downsize to something smaller that also costs less, now is definitely a risky/uneven time to sell and you really have to know what your local market conditions are - particularly if selling and then buying something new results in you having to grab a mortgage at interest rates not seen since the early 2000s. If you own your home outright or have enough equity to wind up in a new place/property without a mortgage that fits you better, full steam ahead on listing right now. Home values should stagnate a bit due to those escalating mortgage rates....but they likely won't start uniformly dropping across the board until the job market feels the effects of the recession that's been slowly building steam throughout 2022 and foreclosures start adding to the market - hopefully not to the extent of what happened during the housing crash of 2008-2011 since the lending market isn't the cause of this recession, but there will be an impact.

A few years Germany and much of the EU actually incentivized burning wood pellets by claiming it as "renewable" since trees grow back...with that line of thinking, fossil fuels are also renewable because biomass in the earth eventually turns into coal/oil/natural gas - problem is that burning wood for energy is worse than fossil fuels in terms of GHG emissions and it has led to a deforestation problem that should have been all to easy to predict: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/world/europe/europe-wood-energy-deforestatation.html Energy policy needs to be focused on it being incredibly reliable, resilient, secure and cost-effective above all else. Once those factors are addressed satisfactorily, then industry can work around the fringes to improve overall environmental impact (not just from energy emissions at a power plant level, but from all aspects of energy production) and continue to improve via technological advancement. If energy policy is driven too much by secondary factors or becomes too reliant on inconsistent energy sources for new generating capacity to provide a growing population, you wind up with scenarios like the above where developed continents are reverting to medieval energy production by burning wood on an industrial scale because it gets countries a few percentage points away from reliance on fossil fuel/nuclear sources.

Mortgage rates haven't plateaued at all - they're just waiting for the next Fed rate hike announcement to continue proceeding higher. They are basically at 6% on average, which hasn't been seen since 2008. https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/08/homes/mortgage-rates-september-8/index.html

I really hope he's right - both our vehicles are in that queasy spot in terms of mileage/age that it feels like anytime a significant repair comes up we question whether it's worth it compared to just buying a new vehicle (we consistently purchase used cars traded in after their initial lease is up). Had to replace a differential on my ride this summer, which would've typically led to me changing vehicles if car prices weren't so insane. If they get the chip shortage sorted out that relieves the delays getting new vehicles purchased and on the road faster, that should drive used car prices down even faster. Those prices almost have to crater because people are just not looking to buy anything substantial unless they absolutely need to right now - the mechanic I go to said his business has never been better aside from all sorts of part shortages, because if people have a car that isn't totaled they're holding onto it for dear life. Guessing home prices are going to hit a wall and fall as well, although that might be due more to rising interest rates shocking that market than a lack of demand. People have funds for housing, but the combo of skyrocketing mortgage rates and home prices are a double whammy that forces many 1st time homebuyers to stick with paying their rising rents and keeps current homeowners in their own home.

Gazprom, unfortunately - might be tricky to find a way to get money invested with all the sanctions, but that hasn't stopped Russia from getting its oil and gas sold. Much of western Europe is in a really bad spot in terms of being incredibly dependent on receiving energy from outside its borders. I hope they get some things figured out quickly - otherwise they are in for a world of hurt this winter.

Sure, but what they failed to do was see how any sort of recovered/healed knee and mindset translated to on-the-field performance in game situations before offering a contract extension they had no urgent need to offer. If Yelich's camp told the Brewers' FO that "it's now or never" in early spring 2020, I'd have simply said, "Ok, guess it's never, or we'll address this again over the next offseason when you still have 2 seasons left on your current contract" Yelich is 30 years old this year, which would have been his last under his former contract assuming the Brewers would have picked up his 2022 option (something that would actually be very open to debate given Yelich's 2020-2021 season performance). I'd have been just fine letting him walk after this season and not thought twice about it even if he maintained MVP-level production, because I just don't want to see the Brewers extending players longterm once they are beyond 30 years old.

Stearns' biggest mistake, IMO, is giving Yelich that contract extension before seeing exactly how he recovered from that knee injury when they still had him under his previous contract for up to 3 more seasons at very friendly prices for their payroll. Conversely, this is probably the best move Yelich's agent made in their entire career. By waiting would the Brewers have risked not being able to extend Yelich had he continued raking offensively? Yes, but they also could have gotten 3 more years of his prime without burdening their payroll longterm - something a team with the payroll limitations the Brewers have must focus on instead of extending players well into their 30s so we can watch their inevitable decline. The Brewers built their whole window around him being the 2018-2019 version of himself through the years when most of their young pitching core would reach free agency. Not having that player in the middle of their lineup really hurts, especially now that they are paying him to be that type of hitter and instead they get a "serviceable" leadoff hitter who is a declining defender. The trade for Yelich was highway robbery given the fact none of the prospects shipped to the Marlins have amounted to anything and the Brewers instantly got an MVP-caliber OF in his prime under an incredibly team-friendly contract. The Brewers could have waited 1 or 2 seasons to see how Yelich's career arc trended after that knee injury before working out a mega contract extension, and if they did Stearns and company could have actually walked away from Yelich after 2021 without offering him an option year for this season. In retrospect, Braun's extension looks incredibly team-friendly and a better use of limited payroll than Yelich's, and we are barely into the teeth of this organizational albatross of a contract for a small market club.

And July 2021 was roughly the time when inflationary pressures started gaining steam...any sort of year over year increases in the months ahead means prices are still going up significantly despite demand cratering due to economic inactivity. That essentially is stagflation. Reality is that in order to get prices back to reasonable levels, there probably needs to be an extended period of deflation where we are seeing a prolonged stretch of negative year over year prices - similar to what we saw through most of 2009. The fact demand has dropped to the COVID wasteland of spring 2020 isn't really anything to be optimistic or happy about either - there was so much pent up demand forced on the economy from 2020-mid 2021, the fact there isn't significant economic growth beyond that in 2022 despite the inflationary pressures is a bad sign pointing to a sustained and long-lasting recession. As for the market, it's acting almost independent from what the day to day economic reality is facing most of the country - tough to say when another correction will occur because of so many levers committed to propping the market up, but that most likely will happen after people start scratching their heads as to why the FED continues jacking rates up each month despite monthly inflation rates getting back to 1-2% year over year. This economy is more or less malfunctioning and unpredictable.