Plants leave roots in the ground and carbon in soil. No till farming practices of grains and corns sequester massive amounts of carbon into the soil. We dont need to do anything special just quit doing things wrong.
I think you underestimate the amount of carbon we dug out of the soil if you believe that no-till farming will sequester even a fraction of that back in reasonable time frames.
Saw this outsode the wilderness plenty of times as well. Hiking back down from half dome. At 5pm, miles from the summit groups in flip flops and a small water bottle, clearly exhausted and not sure what they were in for, asking if the were close. Nope, turn around folks and enjoy your walk.
It would be inflationary, as less efficient local labor would also require more workers and higher wages. Food costs would go up but the money would be more contained locally as well. Net net I think it would decrease some consumptions, but perhaps leading to a more sustainable model overall.
The market tends to want to test assumptions it seems to me. I would not be overly surprised to see the market act in a fashion to have this question if the Fed will backstop it answered.
The real question I haven't seen much discussion of, is who covers state and local govts massive loss of tax revenue. They cant print money like the fed.
They can raise property gax, income tax, or gas tax, and yes the Fed govt can print money and grant it to states, as it does for highways and Medicaid.
Demand shock is leading to a loss of places to put it, so the price must fall to a low enough price to make it profitable to pay increasing amounts to store it until its worth something.
The price war has depressed the price enough that to keep revenue up companies must continue to pump flat out.
The biggest risk stated in 2008 was contagion to "main street" economy, which did eventually occur to some degree.
This virus and fallout went directly to the main street economy (of the entire world at same time) and stopped it cold.
I think its entirely unknown what the ultimate ramifications are of this cold stop to the world economy. But I see no reason to think its not bigger than 2008.
1. Even in the event of Emergency visits to in network hospitals, one is often charged out of network fees if one of the doctors present is out of network. Which one is not notified of and has no say over, regardless. So going to an in nerwork hospital (which is the best one can do to align to their plan) means nothing.
2. When charged out of network, it most certainly does not mean only the coinsurance rate changes, you are also charged 10 to 50× more. So you are charged say 40% of $5000 rather than 20% of $300. Again, at an in network hospital.
3. Out of pocket max differs dramatically in network to out of network, in some plans going away completely in out of network scenario.
What you are saying above is not just a minimization its completely misleading and wrong.
Or you could look at it the other way, why in the world was +10% up from here the "right number" as to its value. Try to justify that first before questioning the contraction.
Well, sure. It's just that large, fast reactions to relatively sudden events seem harder to justify than large slow reactions to continual events, at least when it comes to an investment with a long timescale.
Also with 80%+ of all trading being algo, they are chasing each other to the bottom. The actual valuations might have been high anyway, but not to justify this.
We are likely going to hit one hell of a bounce once it does find the bottom.
Strictly in the sense that over time it measures something. In the short term peoples opinions matter, in the long run company performamce matters. The stock price relates to earnings and capital efficicency etc over the long haul.
