Category Archives: Yahoo

The 360 shows you diverse perspectives on the days top stories and debates.

Over the past three years, dozens of cities across the country have banned natural gas hookups in newly constructed buildings as part of a growing campaign to reduce carbon emissions from homes. The movement scored a major victory last month, when New York Citys outgoing Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law a ban on gas hookups in new buildings.

Though new laws apply to the entire home, the policy debate often focuses on one room in particular: the kitchen. Gas stoves account for a relatively small share of the emissions released by a typical household, but theyve become a proxy for a larger fight over how far efforts to curb at-home natural gas consumption in the name of fighting climate change should go.

Natural gas consumption accounts for 80 percent of fossil fuel emissions from residential and commercial buildings, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. One study estimated that New Yorks ban on its own would create an emissions reduction comparable to taking 450,000 cars off the road. But the movement has met significant pushback. About 35 percent of U.S. homes use gas for cooking, and surveys show that many people are resistant to switching to an electric or induction range. The gas industry has also launched a massive lobbying campaign that has helped convince 19 Republican-led states to preemptively bar local governments from imposing bans on natural gas.

Beyond the climate implications of natural gas in general, there is also a movement to phase out gas stoves because of the harmful pollutants they release inside the home. Cooking on a gas stove releases nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and formaldehyde, chemicals that have been connected with negative health conditions like asthma, with particular risk to children. One study found that gas stoves can create levels of nitrogen dioxide indoors exceeding the legal limits for outdoor air.

Story continues

The debate over gas stoves is really a two-part conversation, with one element focusing on the environmental harms of at-home natural gas consumption in general, and the other specifically on the indoor pollution that gas cooktops create.

Climate change activists see gas bans as a powerful way to reduce the greenhouse gases created by buildings, which account for about 13 percent of total U.S. emissions. They argue that unlike burgeoning technologies like a green power grid and electric vehicles clean alternatives to gas heaters, appliances and stoves are readily available to most consumers. Critics of the bans, on the other hand, are skeptical of how much theyll really reduce emissions, worry about increasing costs for homeowners and argue that market-based solutions will be most effective at promoting a transition to electrified homes.

When it comes to health, advocates say gas stoves are simply too toxic to be installed in new homes. They call for governments to create financial incentives to help homeowners switch to electric or induction stoves, an expense they argue will ultimately save money relative to the cost of potential health problems.

The gas industry makes the case that with proper ventilation, gas stoves can be safe. Conservatives also take issue with the idea of the government limiting individual choice. Others argue that focusing on gas stoves, a product many people have an intense loyalty to, will only increase resistance to electrification as a whole.

The list of cities to ban gas hookups in new construction appears primed to grow in the coming years, and opposition is likely to ramp up in response. So far, no statewide bans have been put in place. California has come the closest. Starting next year, all homes built in the state may be required to be wired so theyre electric ready even if they have gas appliances installed. In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul has proposed a statewide ban as part of a multipronged initiative to combat climate change.

Gas bans are the only way to meaningfully reduce emissions from the home

For the individual homeowner, as for society at large, managing harmful pollution eventually starts to seem a little silly when equally effective, affordable, and pollution-free alternatives are available. Its time to start making new buildings all-electric and switching out all those existing gas appliances, including gas stoves, for electric alternatives. David Roberts, Vox

Gas stoves are a great entry point for the broader effort to electrify homes

The humble stove may seem like a tiny part of a big problem but its one of our most personal, immediate and tangible. Its also one of the easiest to change. Brady Seals, Guardian

A combination of legal limits and financial incentives could supercharge a shift away from gas

The government could speed things up mightily with subsidies and regulation. If the state provided a big credit for property owners to replace their gas stoves, with particular attention on older stoves in apartment buildings (they often leak or burn very inefficiently), and set up new regulations on the amount of air pollution appliances could produce that would gradually tighten over time, gas cooking could be replaced entirely. Ryan Cooper, the Week

Gas stoves are toxic to our health

Cooking is the No. 1 way youre polluting your home. It is causing respiratory and cardiovascular health problems; it can exacerbate flu and asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in children. Youre basically living in this toxic soup. Shelly Miller, environmental engineer, to Mother Jones

Electrification of homes is one of the few climate transitions thats possible right now

Real estate developers already have most of the technology to replace furnaces with heat pumps, hot water heaters with electric boilers, and gas stoves with induction cooktops. And because cities and towns control building and energy codes, its one of the few areas where they have the power to push through deep emission cuts. Ysabelle Kempe, Grist

Climate change is too important to leave up to the free market

The pursuit of market-based solutions as a pathway to addressing the energy transition in low-income and disadvantaged communities is likely infeasible, and also ethically dubious. Market-based solutions have not achieved their desired goals, thus new ways of thinking need to emerge. Multiple authors, the Appeal

Gas bans rob consumers of their freedom to choose what to have in their homes

As for the gas stove, its the next target for elimination, because it uses gas. The Left, if they get control of everything, would ban it from new manufacture nationwide and then ban its replacement and ownership. If someone in Montana or Florida or Seattle says, But I prefer gas, you can only roll your eyes. James Lileks, National Review

The free market will be much more effective at promoting a transition from gas

With respect to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there would be no need to mandate building electrification if it were already cheaper than the fossil fuel alternatives for heat, hot water, and cooking. In other words, the adoption of electric home heating has been proceeding expeditiously without mandates. Ronald Bailey, Reason

Attacking gas stoves is a great way to turn people off from electrification in general

Home kitchens thus account for about 0.4% of U.S. natural gas use. Thats not a lot! Gas cooking does, however, seem likely to be the biggest obstacle to the effort to electrify the American home in the name of slowing climate change. Whys that? Mainly because people (myself included) like cooking with gas! Its one of the few energy uses that inspires brand loyalty to the fuel consumed. Justin Fox, Bloomberg

Gas bans will actually increase emissions without a green energy grid

It has evolved into the transitional fuel of our time, allowing the U.S. to quickly ditch coal while giving renewables time to expand to the scale needed to power the entire electricity-hungry country. Once those renewables have reached that scale, banning natural gas in residential construction starts making environmental sense. Until then, these proposals are ultimately increasing our carbon footprint. Ognjen Miljani, The Hill

Gas stoves arent ideal, but arent as harmful as critics make them out to be

Its a good choice to avoid gas if youre replacing your stove anyway. But if youre looking for personal ways to protect the environment and your health right now, you have much bigger fish to fry. Electrifying your space- and water-heating systems, or your car, will have a massively larger impact, as will ventilating your kitchen. Liam McCabe, New York Times

Is there a topic youd like to see covered in The 360? Send your suggestions to the360@yahoonews.com.

Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: Getty Images

Excerpt from:

The campaign to ban gas stoves is heating up - Yahoo News

Shark Tank investor and crypto-convert Kevin OLeary believes non-fungible tokens (NFTs) will be bigger than bitcoin (BTC-USD).

The chairman of OShares Investments told Yahoo Finance Live that NFTs offer value because of their ability to digitally track the ownership, authenticity and inventory management of real-world items like vintage watches (of which OLeary is a big collector), sports memorabilia, artwork and other assets.

One of the biggest challenges I have is inventory management, insurance management, and then, of course, authentication, O'Leary said. When people offer me vintage watches, I have to go through a very arduous authentication process to know if it's fake or not, there's so many fake watches in the market. NFTs could solve all of those problems.

OLeary, who once called bitcoin garbage, now says investing in cryptocurrencies and NFTs is like investing in the early days of Amazon (AMZN) and Google (GOOG).

If you invest in Microsoft (MSFT) and Google and Amazon, what is the core youre investing in? It's basically software, OLeary said. Well, bitcoin is not a coin, it's actually software. The blockchain is software, ethereum... HBAR, polygon, is software. So the real decision is if you're willing to invest in software, because it's a productivity tool. It provides a service, particularly in payment systems that is being used globally.

Kevin O'Leary Chairman, O'Shares ETFs; Television Personality, "Shark Tank" speaks during the Milken Institute's 22nd annual Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California, U.S., April 30, 2019. REUTERS/Mike Blake

If 2021 was the year crypto went more mainstream, OLeary says 2022 may see clear regulation in the industry.

If we make it regulated, if we get institutions into it and find a way for them to be compliant, there's trillions of dollars going to come into this space, because it has a pragmatic use.

OLeary holds multiple positions in the industry including Immutable Holdings (HOLD.NE) which owns NFT.com, the payments platform Circle, and the decentralized finance platform WonderFi (WONDF),which recently bought Canadas largest crypto exchange. OLeary is also a paid spokesperson and endorser for crypto exchange FTX.

Story continues

The Swiss, the Canadians, the UAE government, some of these places are now becoming a little bit more progressive and you have to invest in those geographies, if you want exposure [to crypto and NFTs], said OLeary.

While he admits crypto is more volatile than tech stocks, OLeary said its something investors need to make peace with. Bitcoin recently fell 40% below its November peak as cryptocurrencies stumbled into 2022.

Bitcoin's having one of its worst starts [to a new year] ever," O'Leary said. "But you have to get used to it, just like you had to get used to Amazon, where it would have these 30% to 50% corrections, same thing with bitcoin.

OLeary began adding bitcoin to his portfolio in March 2021. At the time, he allocated 3% of his portfolio to the worlds largest cryptocurrency after his native country Canada, and a handful of other countries, eased restrictions on institutional buying of the asset.

When it comes to choosing which coins to own, OLeary says he applies the same rules of diversification that he applies to picking stocks and bonds. No more than 5% in any one position, no more than 20% in the whole sector. So I'm not anywhere near 20% in crypto, I've just gone over 10.7% in our operating company.

Ether (ETH-USD) is currently his largest crypto position even larger than bitcoin.

It certainly takes a lot of time in my day, just tracking all this stuff," he said. "I'd say I spend 40% of my investment day tracking cryptocurrencies now."

Alexis Christoforous is an anchor and reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter@AlexisTVNews.

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, Flipboard, and LinkedIn

Go here to read the rest:

Shark Tanks Kevin OLeary thinks 2022 is the year of NFTs - Yahoo Finance

European stock markets advanced on Monday. In London, the FTSE 100 rose 0.6% after opening, adding to last weeks gains. Photo: Jack Taylor/Getty

European stock markets continued their positive trend higher on Monday.

In London, the FTSE 100 (^FTSE) rose 0.6% after opening, adding to last weeks gains, while the CAC (^FCHI) climbed almost 0.3% and the DAX (^GDAXI) was 0.1% higher.

Londons benchmark index has been the standout performer this year so far, up just over 2%, driven largely by energy, basic resources and banking stocks.

The UK had its share of economic data to guide the path, Kunal Sawhney, chief executive of Kalkine Group, said. The November GDP data of 0.9% showed that growth was in a better position than the pre-pandemic levels, and that will help markets to firm up this week.

There has been a continuous decline in COVID cases and also UK Health Security Agencys latest risk assessment showing Omicron relatively being mild for most adults will boost morale.

Read more: Fuel stress to hit 6 million UK households as energy bills soar

Across the pond, S&P 500 futures (ES=F) were down 0.1%, Dow futures (YM=F) were trading flat, and Nasdaq futures (NQ=F) were 0.3% lower as trade began in Europe.

Wall Street stocks have had a slow start to the year so far, with the S&P 500 and the Dow both finishing lower for the second week in a row, although the Nasdaq managed to eke out a weekly gain, despite touching a three-month low earlier in the week.

For a good part of this year there has been rising anxiety on the part of US investors especially about the likely path of US rate rises this year, as concerns about more persistent inflation levels prompt more aggressive talk from members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) about the likely path of rate rises this year, Michael Hewson of CMC Markets said.

US markets are closed on Monday for Martin Luther King Day.

Asian share markets were choppy on Monday as a slew of Chinese economic data revealed the recent effect of COVID restrictions on consumer spending, prompting Beijing to again ease monetary policy.

Story continues

In Japan, the Nikkei (^N225) climbed 0.7%, after losing 1.2% last week, while the Hang Seng (^HSI) fell 0.7%, and the Shanghai Composite (000001.SS) rose 0.6%.

Chinas fourth quarter GDP figures came in at an annualised 4% year-on-year in October-December, amid a combination of port disruptions due to COVID restrictions, supply chain issues, as well as surging power costs and enforced shutdowns of the Chinese economy. This was the weakest expansion in 18 months.

Read more: Former Lloyds boss Horta-Osorio quits Credit Suisse after investigation

Retail sales growth slowed sharply to just 1.7% year-on-year in December, down from 3.9% previously.

Louis Kuijs, head of Asia economics at Oxford Economics, said: Consumption remains the weakest link in Chinas growth story at the moment and that will by and large continue for much of this year.

We think Beijing has a bottom line of around 5%. As is the case at the moment, if growth is weaker than that, theyd feel strongly motivated to pursue more policy easing.

Elsewhere, Chinese president Xi Jinping will be speaking later on Monday as part of the Davos Agenda series organised by the World Economic Forum (WEF).

See the article here:

European stock markets open higher at the start of the week - Yahoo Finance UK

Kellogg's Corn Flakes cereal.Thomson Reuters

Officials in Mexico have seized 380,000 boxes of Kellogg's cereal, AP reported.

Cartoons featured on the boxes were thought to breach recent legislation to improve kids' diets.

The raid mainly took place at a warehouse located north of Mexico City.

Mexico has seized 380,000 boxes of Kellogg's cereal, including Corn Flakes and Special K, AP reported.

According to AP, officials raided 75 stores and seized batches of Kellogg's products. Most of the raid took place at a warehouse located north of Mexico City.

The decision was made because the cartoon mascots on the boxes were thought to breach recent laws aimed at improving children's diets. The seized cereals may not necessarily contain high levels of sugar but the laws ban food companies from using marketing ploys to entice children, AP reported.

The health of Mexican residents is becoming an increasingly important area of concern for officials.

In 2020, the southern state of Oaxaca put measures in place to curb an obesity crisis in the country, which has been underscored by high death tolls during the COVID-19 pandemic, The Guardian reported.

Lawmakers in the region banned the sale of sugary drinks and high-calorie snacks to children, and proposed fines and potential closures for stores breaching these rules.

According to a 2020 study, about 73% of the Mexican population is considered overweight.

Kellogg's did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

The cereal boxes that were seized in the raid also reportedly excluded nutritional information, Mexico's consumer protection agency told AP.

Last year, Kellogg's workers made headlines when 1,400 workers ended their 77-day long strike after voting on a new contract that included cost-of-living raises for employees.

Read the original article on Business Insider

See the original post:

Mexico seizes 380,000 boxes of Kellogg's cereal, claiming they feature cartoons that breach laws designed to improve children's diets - Yahoo News

Joe B. Hall, who died Saturday at age 93, amassed 297 wins during his coaching career at Kentucky from 1972-85.

Maybe Kentucky should give him one more.

Seemingly inspired by the pre-game festivities at Rupp Arena honoring Hall, the No. 18 Wildcats (14-3, 4-1 SEC) took control late in the first half and rolled to a 107-79 victory over No. 22 Tennessee (11-5, 2-3).

TyTy Washington Jr. scored 14 of his career-high 28 points in the first half for Kentucky, which won its third straight game. The Wildcats also improved to 12-0 at home this season.

Kentucky guard TyTy Washington Jr. was a big reason the Wildcats won on Saturday. (Jordan Prather-USA TODAY Sports)

The Wildcats shot 67.9% from the field their best percentage in any SEC game in the past 25 years.

Kentucky scored 52 first-half points against the Vols who entered the game only allowing 60.7 points per game and took a 52-38 lead into the break. The Wildcats began the second half with a 15-7 run over the first 3:39 to open up a 22-point advantage at 67-45.

Kentucky's lead grew as big as 89-57 on a Kellan Grady free throw with 8:18 left. Grady finished with 16 points.

Sahvir Wheeler scored 21 points for Kentucky. Oscar Tshiebwe (nine points, 12 rebounds) was denied his 13th double-double of the season, but his free throw with 2:31 left gave Kentucky its 100th point. No Tennessee team under Rick Barnes had given up 100 points in a game before Saturday.

The Wildcats remembered Hall in a video tribute before the game.

The Wildcats also came out in a 1-3-1 zone a defense that Hall loved but Calipari's team doesn't play on their first possession. Calipari was also coaching with a rolled-up program in his hand, another Hall trademark.

Unfortunately for UK fans, the Vols scored on the possession. But the Wildcats took a 6-5 lead early in the first half and never trailed again.

Kentucky had quite a day, but the day belonged to Joe B. Hall.

See the article here:

Kentucky honors Joe B. Hall in the best way possible, by routing Tennessee - Yahoo Sports

Geoff Beers, host of the 40 Finance YouTube channel, joins Yahoo Finance to discuss the rise of meme stocks like GameStop and AMC over the past year, retail investing trends, energy stocks, earnings season, and the outlook for the stock market.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

- From the boom in retail trading to the unprecedented levels of stimulus out of Washington, last year's trading environment is a tough one to follow in 2022. Our next guest helps us make sense of it all. Geoff Beers is creator of the "40 Finance" blog and YouTube channel. He joins us now. Jeff, it's been just over a year now since activist investor Ryan Cohen picked up a seat on GameStop's board of directors in one of the key events leading up to that surge we saw in GameStop shares last year. This year, are we going to see that same kind of surge taking place in GameStop, AMC, or a new cohort of stocks? Or was last year really the peak for this retail investor-driven trade?

GEOFF BEERS: Hey there. You know, I would say that the conditions were perfect for it last year. But on the same token, this might have been the greatest win in retail investing history, just the results that we saw from GameStop and AMC. I don't hold positions in either, nor did I participate in the run up.

But I think that when you start to put together the information that's available on the internet and the fact that there's some very, very smart people who are retail investors and they're sharing ideas between each other, I think that you'd have to say we'll see it again at some point. But this year, I don't know. I think you're coming off of perfect conditions, as you mentioned, with the stimulus, with the sort of time at home in the lockdown period.

But then there's another catch to it all, too, is we had the pandemic bottom, which was a great starting point for this type of activity. And I'm not sure that we're going to see a huge bottom anytime over the next year.

ADAM SHAPIRO: Jeff, for those of us who like to make a buck, and some of us like to do it in a more traditional way, I want to ask you a question about oil. A few years back, one of the worst decisions I ever made-- Royal Dutch Shell. Great dividend over history, right? The world's going to need more oil, right? Boy, was that the wrong call. That stock-- boom. So if you're looking at oil today-- and I won't be buying individual stock, by the way. But what should an investor consider?

Story continues

Because the things that we've been taught to believe-- it had-- they paid a dividend for years and years and years. And they were one of the giants, and now, you know, they've been slayed.

GEOFF BEERS: Yeah. And I think if you sit at the dinner table or you go out with Graham Paul, he's going to tell you how great the oil stocks are and what they did for his investment over time. But I think that world's changed quite a bit. And the obvious point inflection that we have now looking ahead, it is little single-point declines in revenues.

You know, it'll take forever for fossil fuels to not be profitable for these companies. Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves on the EV revolution. But the fact of the matter remains that very, very slowly, those markets are declining. And in today's environment-- you know, I recently did a deep dive across the sector.

And I think that oil stocks today, for as much as they're on TV as like the energy play for 2022, I would say oil stocks today, in my opinion, are fairly valued, if not, you know, 3% over fair value. And the only upside, the only reason really get in them now for the short term, is do you think oil prices go to $90 or $100 a barrel? And that's where your thesis has to be.

- What's your outlook for tech specifically-- shifting gears a little bit-- on a sector basis? Because where the big tech stocks go, the S&P 500 and NASDAQ really go, as well, because of their weights in the index. We're seeing the NASDAQ composite really getting crushed again during today's session. Are you seeing opportunities in tech outside of the mega cap names?

GEOFF BEERS: I think we're getting very, very close. I was actually doing some scouting myself, and there are points-- I don't think I would go on the record and say tech is on sale yet. But I think if you look across some of the names that actually bring in earnings, whether it's in the Nvidias of the world, even DocuSign I was looking at for a minute today, their P/Es are starting to come down to points where, again, they're not on sale, but they're certainly 10 times better than what we saw last year.

Now I'm a huge proponent of the QQQ, and that's a lot of what I'm playing here in the first quarter of 2022. I think that we've got a lot of inflection points, most notably earnings coming up here in the next month or so. And when those earnings come out, I'm not as concerned about who hit their Q4 numbers or not. I think that Googles, Microsofts, et cetera, are going to hit their numbers for Q4.

But the CEOs are going to have to sit on the stage and tell us what do they see in 2022. And there's a chance that what the CEOs see is going to be a lot different than what analysts have projected for earnings in 2022. So I would be very patient. And I would consider, in my opinion, looking at something like the QQQ and avoid nit-picking through individual stocks, because some of these fortunes for companies-- the expectation of 2022 earnings is going to end up being a lot different than I think a lot of analysts have projected.

- All right, we will leave it there for now. Geoff Beers, creator of the "40 Finance" blog and YouTube channel, thank you so much for your time.

See the rest here:

Gamestop and AMC up to 2022 'greatest win in retail trading history': 40 Finance host - Yahoo Finance

Last week, I returned from a two-week trip to Europe where I didnt spend any money at all. Or at least not any cash.

To be clear, I visited Finland, Sweden and Denmark without using any paper money (or coins). I never used any euros or krona or krone. And not only that, I never saw anyone spending money, period. Meaning I didnt see anyone fumbling around in their pockets for bills, or heaven forbid change. (Not even that drunk guy at the 7-Eleven in Copenhagen.) Everyone used cards and phones.

It really hit me, and so I decided to explore this notion of an increasingly cash-free world. Will money completely disappear? If so, how far along are we? And how is COVID-19 and the rise of crypto shaping this shift? Now I understand the concept of a cashless society isnt especially new and that cash is hardly dead. Having said that, there are some decidedly new elements here.

First consider how our thinking about money and cash has changed over recent history. I remember neighbors paying me cash to shovel snow as a kid. After that I remember getting a paycheck in 1974 from my first job as a dishwasher at the Sir Walter Raleigh Inn Steakhouse in Bethesda, Maryland. Then there was the changeover from checks to direct deposit at Fortune Magazine sometime in the 1980s.

In short, I haven't been in cash since I was a kid. And of course today I pay the young guy in Maine who cuts my grass and sells me eggs by Venmo (PYPL). To be sure, in some instances, cash is still king, (some places in NYC still accept only cash). Some people cant afford or dont want bank accounts. Some merchants bridle at credit card fees. And bad guys prefer cash. But the trend is going the other way.

A man changes a dollar bill with the bus driver's assistant, who is holding a wad of Bolivar banknotes, at a bus stop outside the Antimano metro station in Caracas, Venezuela March 9, 2021. Picture taken March 9, 2021. REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria

So is cash really dead? It depends on what you mean by it's dead, says Kenneth Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard and the author of "The Curse of Cash." Its certainly less and less used at the corner grocery. Cash used to dominate small transactions and that's increasingly not true. Debit cards, especially and smartphones, credit cards are pushing cash increasingly out of small transactions.

Story continues

It also appears the decline of cash is accelerating. This from a JP Morgan report in October titled "Payments are eating the world." (Yes, the Andreessen trope again.) In 2010, the fastest way to move money on the same day from New York to London was to catch a flight from JFK to Heathrow and deliver it yourself. Now, you can initiate a secure, real-time payment thats sent and received into your account in seconds at virtually no cost and in any currency."

Cellphone adoption has sped things up too, the report notes: In 2016, there were 3.67 billion smartphone subscriptions. That figure has now doubled and by 2026, 91% of the global population will have a smartphone.

Yes, debit cards have become a force. Last year debit had a 28% share of all payment used, says Jeremy Balkin, global head of innovation & corporate development, payments at JPMorgan, and co-author of the above report. Thats higher than credit, cash, and any other form. Quite remarkable.

Now layer on COVID. Like so many facets of our lives, the pandemic is altering our relationship with money. Home-bound shoppers created a huge wave of cashless transactions at a time when even handling money was thought to be unsafe. Bloomberg reports that COVID-19 shifted $5 trillion in global retail sales from offline to onlinea good chunk of which was cash, or, 47% in the euro area for instance. The chart from McKinsey (below) hints at that.

Chart detailing the decline of cash usage in a range of countries. (Source: The 2020 McKinsey Global Payments Report)

So the amount of currency the U.S. mint is printing must be going down, right? Not exactly. Before we get into that, its important to understand the difference between (1) how much the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (or BEP as its known by the cognoscenti) is printing and (2) how much currency is in circulation, which has continued to grow substantially. So while BEP printed 1.7 billion $1 bills in 2013 and expects to print only 1 billion this year, there were still 13 billion $1 bills in circulation in 2020 versus 7.7 billion in 2000. (NB: There were 47.3 million more people living in the U.S. in 2020, versus 2000.)

Now lets look at the big picture. In 2000, the BEP printed 9 billion total bills worth $67 billion. This year it expects to produce between 6.8 billion and 9.6 billion bills worth between $310 billion and $356 billion. So around the same amount or perhaps fewer bills than 2000, but worth some five times more. How to explain that?

Very simply: A massive surge in the printing of Benjamins, aka $100 bills. The math: In 2000 there were 3.8 billion $100 bills in circulation but as of 2020 there were 16.4 billion, worth respectively, (duh), $380 billion and $1.6 trillion. And BEP plans on printing another 2.4 to 2.2 billion $100 bills this year. The total amount of all U.S bills in circulation is around 2.2 trillion, so you can see that the value of $100 bills now dwarfs other currencies.

Rogoff says there are a number of reasons for this insatiable demand for $100 bills. One is that interest rates are really low. Holding cash isnt really different from holding treasury bills, he points out. Ive argued that a large part of cash holdings are explained mostly by tax evasion but also of course by illicit activity like drug dealing, arms dealing, you name it. But its mostly tax evasion.

Darrell Duffie, a professor of economics at Stanford's Graduate School of Business who focuses on financial innovation, concurs. Those hundreds are going to international and national stockpiles of illegal stores of paper money, he says. If youre a criminal or you have some other reason to avoid being on the grid, then youre going to stack your money up in hundred dollar bills."

Its great for the government in the sense a lot of this money sits around for a long, long time and nobody claims it against the U.S. government. The U.S. has more of this than any other country by far. On the other hand it supports criminal behavior. Its a tradeoff. The government tolerates it because paper money is a pretty popular, anonymous instrument. So maybe that guy flying from JFK to Heathrow with the satchel of money doesnt really care if its not the fastest way.

Speaking of money going overseas, just how many of these $100 bills are leaving our shores? More than half it appears (see chart below.)

A chart that shows the growth of foreign holdings of U.S. dollar banknotes. (Source: U.S. Treasury Department)

Of course, no one knows how many $100 bills are in some Belgian bank that's holding hundreds in lieu of some ultra-low yielding Euro bond, versus in the vault of some narco-arms-dealing terrorist. But it is the case that the U.S. Treasury is supplying both.

(A million dollars in $100 bills, in case youre wondering, weighs about 22 pounds, they say. A double stack would be about 21.5 inches high by 12.28 inches by 2.61 inches. You could carry it in a big briefcase, or as I suggested, a satchel.)

Another point to dig into here is the degree to which the cash and non-cash worlds are increasingly becoming, like so many things today, bifurcated, in this case along economic lines. Meaning, poor, technology-deprived populations use cash much more than wealthy, technological-rich groups.

A somewhat opaque report from Merchant Machine, a British payment information website, ranks The Countries Most Reliant on Cash In 2021" as: Romania, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Morocco, Philippines, Peru, Hungary, and Vietnam. Not exactly the developed world, and all except Hungary below the world average in GDP per capita of around $11,000 per annum.

There are, predictably, cash advocates. Check out Cash Matters A pro cash movement that is proud to work closely with (and perhaps funded by) what appears to be European ATM, printing and transaction trade groups, as well as JA til kontanter a Norwegian group (Yes to Cash in English.) (Here we go with the Nordic countries again.) This organization exists with the goal of defending cash in Norway's payments landscape by getting as many members as the SV Party, the latter that countrys Socialist Left Party, which is opposed to European Union membership, and supports republicanism in Norway.

No matter what you think of that, its not all bunk. Or as the site notes: Smart and online technologies are changing the way we pay, however, cash is still the most attractive means of payment for a huge majority of people worldwide. The site then goes on to look at 10 key reasons for the relevance of cash. Saying: Cash ensures stable currency systems. It is not only the most secure means of payment and resilient in terms of crisis, it also reflects a nations identity as banknotes and coins are often a nations calling card, valued by people beyond their monetary worth.

So you can look at it in one of two ways (or both), that cash is only used by poor people and they need to change and it will be good for them and its a great business opportunity. Or that we should be mindful and careful that these people have access to money, and be wary of the change that might leave them behind.

Now lets quickly look at the role crypto plays. Clearly its an accelerant but to what degree is unclear. Two of the countries on the biggest cash user list above, Egypt and Morocco, are also two of eight countries that have banned crypto. On the other hand, some other developing countries may soon be using crypto as legal tender as El Salvador does.

You see a few companies accepting crypto, but as Darrin Peller, a stock analyst at Wolfe Research who covers payment companies Visa and Mastercard, says: Using crypto to go to the store to buy a shirt is fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Is there a problem using money today to buy a shirt at a store? Why use bitcoin for it, or other blockchain technology if everything works well for the consumer now? Number two, the technology behind crypto, blockchain on a per transaction basis isnt as efficient. Its more expensive, slower, uses more computing power, and has a lot of issues relative to what we have today in domestic processing. That might change over time but its a problem to fix. And another problem is the volatility of crypto.

A signal that reads "We accept bitcoin here" is seen outside a street stall in Sal Salvador, on November 18, 2021. (Photo by Sthanly ESTRADA / AFP) (Photo by STHANLY ESTRADA/AFP via Getty Images)

Theres a kind of halfway between crypto and fiat currency, (as old-school money is called), which is known as central bank digital currency (or CBDC), which countries see as a way to co-opt the trend to digital currency as well as combat tax evasion and criminal activity. Right now as many as 87 countries are exploring a central bank digital currency.

That scenario is basically the government saying I dont want us to lose control of our monetary system to crypto, which is a decentralized system so I'm going to offer a centralized alternative stabilized by my own currency, says Peller.

No question its a response to crypto, Rogoff adds. Governments realize they need to regulate. In the case of bitcoin, theyll probably ban its use in transactions. They find it difficult politically to do that until theyve provided an alternative.

Duffie of Stanford says the tradeoffs are really big with CBDCs. On the positive side, with the decline of paper money, the government wants to be a part of the payment system and this is the substitute. They want payments to be easier and more inclusive for people without bank accounts. The downsides are also pretty big. When was the last time the government did a massive piece of technical infrastructure really well? The other downside is huge: Americans are concerned when a government agency has all their private data in a giant database.

As I said this has been going on for quite some time. Barrons did a cover story titled The End of Cash? by Alexander Eule, in December 2012, which hits the mark. The big takeaway was that Visa (V) and Mastercard (MA) were then in the catbird seat. The article noted one analyst who had a price target of $611 on Mastercard and $172 on Visa. How did the stocks do? Well. Very well. Mastercard now trades for $376 a share, but the stock split 10 for one in January 2014, (or $3,760 taking accounting for the split.) As for Visa it now trades for $223, but it split four for one in March 2015 (which would be $892 split adjusted).

That was then and this is now though. The stocks of both Visa and Mastercard underperformed last year and some, including billionaire Chamath Palihapitiya, say the glory days for these companies have passed. Of course not everyone agrees, but Palihapitiya argues that the companies are a "completely contrived duopoly that doesn't need to exist, citing Amazons recent ban of Visa credit cards in the UK, because of what Amazon indicates are high transaction fees. Itll be interesting to see how V and MA trade over the next five years.

For those who will miss real cash, fear not. The U.S. Mint makes all kinds of currency and collectibles: paper sheets of bills (all sold out, perhaps after former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchins wife Louise Linton upped their profile) as well as "The Lucky Money Collection" featuring distinctive artwork that celebrates Chinese symbolism and numerology.

(There are also coins and medals of Barbara Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, as well as Negro Leagues Baseball players just out this past Thursday! Kennedy Half Dollars, Peace Silver Dollars, Native American $1 Coins, the American Innovation $1 Coin Program, and the American Women Quarters Program. Truly something for everyone.)

Where is this all headed? Probably not to a cashless society (at least not for a few decades), but a less cash society decade, as Shelle Santana of the Harvard Business School wrote not long ago. We still need cash. For instance, USA Today reports, some 25% of Americans are either unbanked or underbanked, (they use financial products and services outside the banking system). That means about 25% of all Americans would be unable or limitedly able to participate in a cashless system, the USA Today article noted.

I don't think itll ever disappear. I think itll go down to a very small percentage after many, many years, Peller says. I think there will be the ability to have digital transactions over 90% in the next decade.

I think well have some form of paper currency with us for a long time but it will become increasingly vestigial, Rogoff says. As it gets harder to launder paper currency, demand for it will drop. If youve got $5 million in hundred dollar bills people offered that for a house for example and want to keep it under the radar screen, you have to be able to gradually spend it down.

Criminals of all stripes use many types of money and payments, but its interesting the bad guys now seem to use both the oldest, (i.e. cash), and the newest (crypto) forms as their preferred vehicles these days. The common denominator of course is both are difficult to track. Curbing their behavior would require more regulatory oversight, and many Americans are often uncomfortable with that.

Theres a trade-off, and a cost, to everything, right?

(A previous version of this story stated that the BEP expects to print only 1 million $1 bills this year. In fact it expects to print 1 billion. The article has been corrected.)

This article was featured in a Saturday edition of the Morning Brief on January 8, 2022. Get the Morning Brief sent directly to your inbox every Monday to Friday by 6:30 a.m. ET. Subscribe

Andy Serwer is editor-in-chief of Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Twitter: @serwer

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, Flipboard, and LinkedIn

More here:

Why we use more cash than ever - Yahoo Finance

Pop quiz: Is President Bidens COVID vaccine requirement for most businesses on or off?

If youre not sure, dont worryyour boss probably doesnt know, either.

In September, Biden announced a new federal rule that would require all companies with 100 employees or more to assure their workers are either vaccinated or get regular COVID testing. There were a few exceptions, but the rule was likely to cover about 80 million private-sector workers. Separate rules required vaccination, with no testing option, for federal contractors,health care workers at facilities that receive federal funding, federal employees and U.S. military service members.

To nobodys surprise, there are now a raft of court proceedings meant to determine if these orders are valid, with injunctions, stays of injunctions, further appeals and mass confusion. The most important hearing was an emergency Supreme Court session on Jan. 7, where the justices heard arguments on two mandates, the one covering all companies with 100 workers or more and the one covering health care facilities. The court could decide the matter within days.

For now, heres a qualified answer to the pop quiz: The rule for those larger companies is in effect, with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration saying it will start enforcing the rule on Feb. 9. But that depends on what the Supreme Court does. In November, one appeals court blocked the mandate. But in December, another appeals court overruled the first one, effectively reinstating the mandate. So OSHA is proceeding as if the mandate is in place.

During the Jan. 7 hearing, conservative justices seemed skeptical that a federal agency such as OSHA could issue such a sweeping mandate, with a couple of them suggesting a mandate would only be legit if Congress passed a law requiring it. That could mean the broad mandate is doomed, since conservatives hold a 6-3 majority on the court. The justices seemed to think the narrower mandate for health-care facilities, which affects about 17 million workers, was more appropriate.

[Click here to get Rick Newmans stories by email.]

Story continues

Some business leaders, generally opposed to the government telling them what to do, have offered lukewarm support for the Biden mandates. The Business Roundtable, representing corporate America, has said it welcomes the Biden administrations continued vigilance in the fight against COVID. While most government mandates force businesses to do something they dont really want to do, a COVID vaccine requirement is different, because it takes the burden for the requirement off business and puts it on the government. All businesses have to comply and none can try to game the system by undercutting a competitors rules. During this years Milken Institute Global Conference, a panel of CEOs indicated they werent requiring workers to get vaccinated because they feared losing talent to other companies with looser rules.

Smaller businesses are less enthused. The National Federation of Independent Businesses opposes the mandate and argued against it during the Supreme Court session. As with many regulations, smaller businesses have a harder time bearing the cost and hassle of sweeping rules than big companies do.

The Supreme Court will technically gauge whether the Biden administration can enforce the mandate, while lower courts will determine whether it is constitutional. Still, if the Supreme Court knocks down the mandate even temporarily, that could be the end of it.

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett walks out onto the front portico of the court with Chief Justice John Roberts after her formal investiture ceremony in the courtroom at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S. October 1, 2021. Franz Jantzen, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States/Handout via REUTERS

If there's a surprise and the court ultimately upholds the mandates, it could end litigation on some of the other vaccine requirements, and perhaps speed the end of the COVID pandemic. If the majority of American workers need to get vaccinated to keep their jobs, and theres nowhere to hide (except smaller firms), it will further boost vaccination rates and reduce the number of targets for Omicron and future variants.

A murky SCOTUS ruling, or a knockdown of the Biden vaccine requirement, would obviously have the opposite effect. Businesses could still require their own workers to get vaccinated, as some have already done. The law clearly seems to allow that. But vaccination would continue to be a patchwork affair and some companies that need workers probably would try to poach them from competitors through greater tolerance of the unvaccinated.

Biden, for his part, must have known his vaccine orders would get tied up in the courts, given the litigation of practically everything involving COVID rules. But he didnt really have better options. He could have tried a full nationwide vaccine requirement, for everybody, but that probably would have faced legal challenges, too, and probably would have been unenforceable. Giving it a shot at the employer level was a reasonable fallback, especially given the surge in cases of the Delta variant, at the time.

In the cleanest case, if the Supreme Court robustly endorses a government vaccine requirement, it will still be touchy for OSHA to enforce the rule. Most big, publicly traded companies will probably go along, but there could be resistance at smaller companies in areas where anti-vaxxers are prominent, if only because some of those companies might face an exodus of workers if they have to show proof of vaccination. Will the federal government go around issuing fines and penalties for businesses that dont comply with a vaccine requirement? One messy chapter only begets another.

Editor's note: This article was originally published on Jan. 6 and updated after the Supreme Court's arguments on Jan. 7.

Rick Newman is a columnist and author of four books, including "Rebounders: How Winners Pivot from Setback to Success. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman. You can also send confidential tips.

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, Flipboard, and LinkedIn

Read more:

The vaccine mandate mess will probably get messier - Yahoo Finance

Two-hundred spectators participated in the annual Olvera Street Three Kings procession on Thursday. The procession was canceled last year because of COVID-19. (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

As coronavirus cases soared across Los Angeles last week, Jennifer Chan entered Olvera Streets Casa California in search of the colorful and decorative papel picado for her baby shower.

I wanted something that said California for the party, said Chan, 28, a La Mirada resident who is six months pregnant and whose East Coast family was flying in for the event. Plus, I really wanted to get out of the house for a change.

Chan, who works as a computer programmer, has generally been extremely cautious throughout the pandemic getting vaccinated and boosted as soon as she was eligible and leaving her home as little as possible.

But recently shes longed for the normalcy of her pre-pandemic life.

A few months ago she agreed to allow a close friend to throw her an in-person baby shower, and over the last two weeks shes ventured into a grocery store and even dined at two restaurants.

Im about to go through my own lockdown once this baby comes, said Chan, pointing to her stomach. So, Im going to be safe absolutely, but Im also going to enjoy this time and being on my feet while I can.

She's not alone.

People take part in the Dia de los Reyes procession on Thursday. (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

As the Omicron variant infects record numbers of people across California and the nation, many in Southern California say they are no longer willing to hide from a virus that has already killed 800,000 Americans.

Instead, they're ready to live with it.

This may not be a catastrophe.

Epidemiological evidence suggests that while the Omicron variant is much more contagious than previous versions of SARS-CoV-2, it is also significantly less lethal.

In a fairytale scenario, Omicron would burn through the U.S. population, perhaps requiring a few days of sick leave from those it infects, but also imparting immunity to tens of millions and ending the pandemic here for good.

It almost seems reasonable, but experts say the end of the pandemic is unlikely to be that simple, or come that fast.

I think of this time as a transition, said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Assn. The virus is transitioning, and as a society we are transitioning and learning to live with it.

Story continues

The end of the pandemic is likely to be a gradual process, said Chunhuei Chi, director of the Center for Global Health at Oregon State University. Ultimately, it will require us to establish a relationship with SARS-CoV-2 that mirrors our relationship with the virus that causes seasonal flu.

That means getting a shot once a year to prevent the most severe symptoms of COVID-19, and understanding that if you get infected anyway you might feel miserable for a few days, but you are unlikely to end up in the hospital or worse.

We want to get to a place where we are no longer concerned about preventing infections, but instead, worried about preventing severe symptoms and death, Chi said.

It might almost feel like were there now, but scientists say we're not.

Tun-Hou Lee, professor emeritus of virology at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, notes that the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 (254 deaths per 100,000 people) is still far higher than that of influenza (1.8 deaths per 100,000 people).

"Even if one believes that the mortality rate of 254 per 100,000 will be lower once most of the U.S. population is 'fully' vaccinated, my bias is that SARS-CoV-2 infection will have a higher mortality rate than flu," he said.

To further reduce the risk of hospitalizations and deaths from the coronavirus, Chi said he'd like to see new vaccines become available that are better at preventing infections and provide longer-lasting immunity, as well as more effective drug treatments for those who are infected. Both are already in the works, he said. The widespread immunity that will likely be imparted by Omicron will also help even if its fleeting.

I am quite hopeful that with all these factors together, by the fall we may see the pandemic ending and turning into a flu-like endemic, at least in North America, Chi said.

In the meantime, life in Southern California goes on.

In-person classes were back in session Thursday at Leimert Parks Nicholas Dance Studio after a two-week break, but with a whole lot of safeguards firmly in place.

Studio owner Cathie Nicholas had enclosed the viewing area for parents in plexiglass and limited capacity to three people. The studios floor is disinfected twice a week, hand-sanitizing stations abound, and a negative coronavirus test, a temperature check and a mask are all required for entry.

My belief is weve made all the adjustments here and were just kind of rolling with the punches, said Nicholas. It hasnt been easy, but we have to get out and live.

On Thursday evening, 200 spectators participated in the annual Olvera Street Three Kings procession. The three wise men, a pair of angels, the holy family and a slew of shepherds along with visitors completed a lap and a half around Olvera Street.

The annual event, which started in the 1970s, ended with the distribution of rosca de reyes Mexican sweet bread and champurrado.

The procession was canceled in 2021 because of COVID-19.

Valerie Hanley, owner of Casa California shop on Olvera Street, passes out King Day bread after the Dia de los Reyes procession. (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

We had a lot of interest from the community to have this back, said Valerie Hanley, 53, Casa California owner and treasurer of the Olvera Street Merchants Assn. Foundation. And I think we were able to do it because weve done everything we could to make it as safe as possible.

Marchers were masked and most spread out while eating and drinking that night.

There comes a point where you have to get back to being with families and visitors and customers, Hanley said. Its important.

El Sereno Wilson High School senior Donna Arce, who played the Virgin Mary, said she was encouraged by the crowds willingness to mask up and march.

People have been scared for a while, so its nice to see a good crowd, she said. A lot of people have followed the steps, like getting vaccinated and being masked, so we should continue this tradition.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Read the original:

Some Angelenos say it's time to learn to live with COVID - Yahoo News

MLB is reportedly planning to restart labor negotiations with the MLBPA in January, according to Evan Drellich of The Athletic.

The league is reportedly preparing new economic proposals to send to the players. MLB is hoping to deliver those proposals in January. When that happens, it will mark the first time the owners and players have talked since the lockout was instituted in December.

Optimism over those talks should be tempered if using the NBA as a guide. Drellich spoke to a person involved in NBA labor talks who said, "Nothing happens until the very last minute."

The point of (a lockout) generally is to impose economic pressure. And its not going to happen in the beginning, because people arent feeling it. Theyre not getting paid. The season hasnt started. So if the point of it is to impose the economic pressure, then yeah, in theory, its not going to really be effective until you get to the end."

There's logic to that line of thinking. MLB owners make the bulk of their money during the season and players only get paid during the season. Neither side is missing out on much from a financial perspective during the winter. As the season gets closer, both sides could be more desperate to make a deal.

It's tough to know whether the league restarting talks in January will be a good thing without knowing the particulars of the offer. Talking is better than the status quo, but only if the players feel the offer is negotiable. If the league's offer doesn't satisfy what the players are seeking, or comes off as insulting to the players, that could create a further schism between both sides.

Reports from December suggested the two sides were far apart in negotiations. The players likely don't feel much better after the league scrubbed player portraits and stories featuring current players from its website the day the lockout took place.

Player response to the January proposal will be a much better indicator of the end of the lockout. If the players feel the January proposal is negotiable, an end to the lockout could come sooner than expected. But if the players are frustrated with the owners' latest effort, it could be a while before the two sides talk again.

MLB could present a new labor proposal to the union in January. (Photo by James Black/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)

Read more from the original source:

MLB reportedly looking to restart labor talks with union in January - Yahoo Sports