Morning Cup Of Joe

January 13th, 2023

Welcome to your Morning Cup of Joe, an eye-opener to help Joe’s readers ease into their busy workday with a few football links, wacky news and a pleasant distraction.

Distraction of the Day

Looks like the Belicheats are going to go get an offensive coordinator. Funny, haven’t read any rumors of Bill Belicheat interviewing Byron Leftwich. [PFT]

Sean Payton claims he can fix Russell Wilson. As Joe learned years ago, never ever underestimate egos in the NFL. [CBS]

Will Brock Purdy make history and be the first rookie to lead a team to the Super Bowl? (Interesting pajamas Nick Wright is wearing.) [FOX Sports]

NFL coaching tracker. [NFL]

With B1G commissioner Kevin Warren bolting to the Bears, who takes over for Warren? [The Athletic]

Keith Hernandez said it’s difficult to watch baseball games the way the game has devolved. And he’s being paid (handsomely) to watch games! [Awful Announcing]

Olivia Dunne too hot (for LSU security) to handle? [Bro Bible]

Bottom rung on top now. [Outkick]

59 Responses to “Morning Cup Of Joe”

  1. SufferingSince76 Says:

    Payton thought he could fix Jameis, too. How did that work out?

  2. Bucsfanman Says:

    The “culture wars” that aren’t. The fear-mongering is off the charts, as usual.

    Some states are looking to ban the appliances from NEW buildings. The sky is falling!!! Much ado about nothing!

  3. mg Says:

    No gas for you.

  4. Cobraboy Says:

    My oven, my choice.

  5. BucsfanFred Says:

    We’ve got millions of criminals streaming across the border. Inflation is out of control. Wars to pay for. Crime going unpunished. And all these clowns can come up with is to ban gas stoves while they fly off on private jets with armed bodyguards to tropical islands.
    But I know, let’s ban gas stoves! That’s gonna fix everything for sure

  6. DoooshLaRue Says:

    Sean Payton claims he can fix Russell Wilson. As Joe learned years ago, never ever underestimate egos in the NFL
    __________

    Can’t stand Butthole Lips Payton but look what he did for JayMiss. Almost made him respectable…….almost.

  7. reddington neck shores Says:

    you know what doesn’t burn even in a gas oven? tin foil hats. fortunately plenty of those around now to withstand the evil global something or other but oh yes clearly deep state conspiracy.

  8. David Says:

    How can you tell the clowns aren’t serious about climate change? If they were they would be expanding nuclear energy and natural gas, not trying to eliminate it in order to pay China more money for windmill parts and solar panels.

    Love Annie but why does she rarely ever say anything about the Buccaneers?

  9. Ultra ClodHopper Says:

    It’s just one degree hotter. It’s not like we’re boiling. Quit complaining said one frog to the other.

  10. gp Says:

    David
    Love Annie but why does she rarely ever say anything about the Buccaneers?

    Actually, she made a side reference, when she talked about Harbaugh and Dallas at the very end.
    Listen carefully.

  11. Bucsfanman Says:

    Solar and wind are by far the most abundant free energy resource on the planet. Solar is so expensive because some of its parts are made from…you guessed it, PLASTIC. And what is plastic made from? Yea.
    On top of the BILLIONS in subsidies the oil industry receives, they spend $100s of millions to lobby the US government. Plastics have lobbyists too. The energy sector? Well, they’re not in a hurry for you to stop buying their monopolized electricity either.
    Do the math. Solar faces an uphill battle no matter how you slice it even if it is a sensible solution.

    That we’re reliant on China has little to do with it. We don’t manufacture anything anymore. And that’s been going on for a long, long time

  12. D-Rome Says:

    We’ve got millions of criminals streaming across the border. Inflation is out of control. Wars to pay for. Crime going unpunished. And all these clowns can come up with is to ban gas stoves

    Speaking of which, remember that $1.2 trillion dollar infrastructure bill signed into law as part of the COOF bill? That was over a year and a half ago. Do you see any of those Federal dollars on actual infrastructure changes? I don’t see evidence of it anywhere around the country.

  13. mark2001 Says:

    D-Rome. If you look at your stock market investments in companies like Cat, those that will benefit from the infrastructure bill, you will see some heavy hitters believe those companies will do quite well and profit greatly from that infrastructure bill. Covid and the aftermath have thrown a monkey wrench in things in the short term.

  14. gp Says:

    Do the math. Solar faces an uphill battle no matter how you slice it even if it is a sensible solution.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The environmental impact of producing solar panels, and the batteries they need to make them viable, far outstrips the environmental advantages.

    Trading (not much) air pollution, for large amounts of groundwater pollution(longer lasting effects) makes absolutely no sense.

    (not much)… How much conventionally produced electricity does solar replace?

    For solar panels to be environmentally “balanced”, they would have to produce at peak efficiency for hundreds of years. Currently, peak efficiency is only about 5 years and they are literally worthless by twenty years.

    Today’s solar technology is not the answer.

    Ask a sailor about the reliability of wind.
    (similar environmental impacts for wind turbines)

  15. gp Says:

    Who stands to “profit” the most from the US conversion to “environmentally friendly” electric?
    Look no farther than the largest contributors to the global warming(climate change) “environmental” movement.

    Talk about strange bedfellows.
    China (massive polluter) and OPEC (mostly Russia) seem to have invested heavily in the worldwide campaign to convince whole countries to divest of functional infrastructure, only to be replaced by even less environmentally friendly products from them.

    Power and money.

  16. Bucsfanman Says:

    gp- Like most innovations they are certainly not remotely close, and it’s by design in a lot of cases. If the money we “invested” (subsidized) in oil went toward R & D of solar we’d be further along, IMO.
    And I’m not saying that solar is necessarily the answer either. Why not try though?! There’s a solution that exists somewhere that can incorporate all the resources we have. We don’t know that it won’t work.

    To your “profitability” statement, the corporations operating under the guise of “environmentally friendly” are the same 3-4 Big Oil companies who continue to receive billions in subsidies, or the electric monopolies. They just hide under different corporate names but exist under the same umbrella.
    Like you said, follow the money.

  17. geno711 Says:

    I am all for a combination of nuclear, offshore wind, and oil for US energy moving forward.

    I agree with those that think the spending was too much. But for clarity’s sake, clean energy only got 73 billion. For things like new power lines, rebuilding America’s old electric grids AND expanding clean energy.

    There was not enough IMO for Nuclear or offshore wind areas we should be looking to improve and expand. We still are not properly disposing of our nuclear energy waste. New Mexico has never accepted being the waste garbage pail (I can understand why). Our nuclear power plants are shutting down more and more every year (no matter who is in the administration). And offshore wind has exceeded expectations in the UK, year in and year out, making it now more cost effective than any other power source for the UK.

    By the way to put into perspective, the government allowed 66 billion in “infastructure” for trains, 65 billion for “internet”, 39 billion for public transit, 50 billion for waterway infrastructure, 55 billion for pipers and sewer lines, 25 billion for airports, and 110 billion for old style infrastructure like roads, highways, and bridges.

    P.S. @GP the electricity created by wind power can be stored just as other forms of electricity are stored.

  18. gp Says:

    geno
    You are very good at research.
    Check out what elements are needed to build the batteries that power is stored in.
    Then check out how those elements are processed with a special emphasis on the environmental impact of those processes.
    Many of those same elements, plus others are needed to produce wind turbines and solar panels.

    Environmentally, we are taking ten giant steps backward to make one tiny step forward. And then patting ourselves on our backs for how “clever” we are. (quotated sarcasm)

    *********************
    making it now more cost effective than any other power source for the UK.
    *********************
    Something tells me that there is missing context here. Perhaps insert the words ‘is currently using’ after “UK”. Or probably more accurate, insert the ‘green’ between other and power. Those windmills are not cheap to purchase or maintain, especially in the harsh elements of the North Atlantic.

  19. gp Says:

    BFM
    If the money we “invested” _ went toward R & D of…..
    **************************
    I truly love this argument because it applies to soooooooooo many things.

    Still a straw man argument though, because the gubmint is NOT supposed to be “investing” our money.

    If anyone can find the passage in the Constitution that proves me wrong, I’d love to hear it.

  20. gp Says:

    geno
    I 100% agree that nuclear is woefully underutilized. Sad really, considering that it is the most cost effective (long term), and when properly engineered, cleaner and safer than any other current power source other than Hydro (which has it’s own set of environmental impacts).

  21. unbelievable Says:

    gp- you seem a bit confused on that last part.

    China and Russia aren’t trying to get anyone on to clean energy. In fact they have been working to build up the BRICS counties trade relationships, and are working on a remini/yuan/ruble digital oil currency to make the global economy multi-polar, and dethrone the U.S. dollar hegemony.

    Agree about needing more nuclear as a stop gap for the next 50 years or so. We’ve already increased natura gas usage a lot, but that is not clean energy by any means.

  22. unbelievable Says:

    Another words, they want to put an end to the petrodollar dominance.

    Interestingly enough- it’s a few of the Arab countries (who have tons of oil) that are also making some of the biggest investments into cleaner energy alternatives. They see the writing on the wall.

  23. Bucsfanman Says:

    gp- My issue is with subsidies in general and overall. In a free market, you succeed or fail without the help of taxpayer dollars. Many corporations tout R & D to gain grant funding and subsidies but do little to move the needle. So, I agree with you.

    I’m also in agreement with nuclear. It is vastly underutilized. With all the “progress” in manufacturing, it seems like we’d have better technologies and safeguards in nuclear power.

  24. mark2001 Says:

    BFM… Batteries, EV’s, Fission Nuclear Power, etc.. Lithium. You bet. I have.

  25. mark2001 Says:

    And Nuclear Fusion probably. If you want to look down the road, probably beyond my lifetime.

  26. geno711 Says:

    For me cost effectiveness is one of the key needs moving forward.

    I would not minimize that the UK’s most successful energy source per kilowatt hour is currently the offshore wind turbines.

    I also will not put my head in the sand that the US nuclear plant program has a larger and larger chance each year of having some catastrophic event. As the average nuclear plant is well past its intended life cycle already.

    If that happens, the politicians will be pointing their fingers at each other and the nuclear industry and the citizens who don’t like nuclear might win out in the end.

    I personally see no avenue to a no government involvement in energy in my lifetime. They are fully invested in subsidizing all of our energy choices and have been all of my 60 plus years of life.

  27. Alanbucsfan Says:

    companies will do quite well and profit greatly from that infrastructure bill. –

    yes, those windmills they’re installing off the coast of New Jersey are killing whales and creating eyesores at a record pace.

  28. DoooshLaRue Says:

    To be fair, NJ IS an eyesore.

  29. Bucsfanman Says:

    Alan- I am assuming that the whale deaths are related to the construction and not the actual windmill itself because…well…wind?

    And NJ complaining about “eyesores”?!

  30. gp Says:

    If all you see of New Jersey is from the turnpike then yes, it’s an eyesore. If you get off of the turnpike and drive just a little ways, you will find out why it’s called “The Garden State”
    And no,… I’m NOT from “Jersey”!!!
    Fact is, drive just a little ways from any highway and you’ll see some beautiful countryside from 99% of the exits.

  31. gp Says:

    un
    **gp- you seem a bit confused on that last part.
    **Another words, they want to put an end to the petrodollar dominance.
    **They see the writing on the wall.

    Did you ever see the show “Connections” on TLC many years ago?

    Yes, Russia and China have both donated heavily to the “climate change” movement, for similar, but different reasons.
    That movement caused Germany to divest of a power infrastructure that had been cleaned up to the point of minimal pollutants and convert to natural gas.
    That movement has also caused the US to severely curtail production of natural gas meaning that Russia is now their only viable source of fuel.

    Because we have cut back so severely on production, the “petrodollar” is at risk, also in Russia’s favor.

    China has a lock on 90% of the production of the rare earth elements NEEDED to produce EV’s, wind turbines, batteries, solar panels, and a whole slew of electronics that I’m not going to list.

    The dots are there, you just have to connect them.

  32. mark2001 Says:

    1. MP Materials Corp (NYSE: MP)
    2. Rare Element Resources Ltd (OTCMKTS: REEMF)
    3. Ucore Rare Metals (OTCMKTS: UURAF)
    4. Orocobre LTD (OTCMKTS: OROCF)
    5. Avalon Advanced Materials (OTCMKTS: AVLNF)
    6. Lynas Corporation Limited (OTC: LYSCF)
    7. Iluka Resources (OTCMKTS: ILKAF)
    8. Greenland Minerals (OTCMKTS: GDLNF)
    US, Canada, South America, Australia… all over the world…there are many rare earth mining companies. And some hear in the good old USA.

  33. mark2001 Says:

    Here. Not to mention that in specific metals, there are US companies specifically dealing with Lithium… like Lithium USA and giants like Albermarle more diverse. And others like Livent, which are spin offs of FMC. And yes…some huge ones are Chines companies. Tianqi Lithium and Jiangxi Ganfeng Lithium. Just saying. it is a diverse and huge industry.

  34. gp Says:

    Nice list Mark.
    Did you look a little deeper and discover their output and profitability based on the environmental limitations imposed by the various areas where they produce.
    The refining process is extremely dirty and expensive. This give China the upper hand because they don’t care about the environmental impact.

    90%

  35. gp Says:

    Considering the hunger for these materials, based on a hysteria brought about by a false pretense.
    What would happen if say, 20% of the supply dried up overnight.
    Such a circumstance could conceivably freeze entire industries, and even, through snowball effect, collapse entire economies.

    I’m thinking they made a good investment in the “environmentalist” wacko’s.
    And now we all get to pay the price.

  36. unbelievable Says:

    gp Says:

    “That movement has also caused the US to severely curtail production of natural gas meaning that Russia is now their only viable source of fuel.

    Because we have cut back so severely on production, the “petrodollar” is at risk, also in Russia’s favor.”

    ________________________________________________________

    What dude? We are producing more natural gas than ever in the US. That’s totally wrong.

    And the petrodollar being at risk doesn’t have nearly as much to do with our domestic production as it does with geo-politics and global economics. Russia / China have been cozying up to OPEC+ countries, providing them with financing, infrastructure, and all sorts of other perks in exchange for deals on cheaper oil.

  37. unbelievable Says:

    And speaking of rare earth minerals and materials… you know what country just happens to have A TON of them?

    … Ukraine.

  38. gp Says:

    Well, at least you found another dot to connect to something…

  39. unbelievable Says:

    I suppose I could just ignore the facts and data instead?

  40. gp Says:

    If what you say is true, then the “law” of supply and demand would say that everything produced from petroleum and petroleum byproducts would be cheaper for the American consumer. And yes, that means damn near everything you can buy in the store. Natural gas is a petroleum byproduct.

    And yes, if international buyers are unable to purchase American products, and instead have to go to Russia or any of the OPEC producers, it weakens the notion of the “petrodollar” as currency of choice.

  41. unbelievable Says:

    gp you should read up about Bretton Woods II and the petrodollar dominance… it was never because of how much we were producing domestically. It had everything to do with our military and our influence over other countries.

    As far as our production levels, this stuff is very easy to look up. Natural gas is literally being produced at the highest levels ever in US history, while oil is about 5 – 6% off from our highest amounts ever (which was right before covid).

    The problem with the “law” of supply and demand is it doesn’t take into account greed and price gouging… which is why it seemingly takes 10x longer for prices to fall than it does for them to rise. (If they even fall at all)

  42. geno711 Says:

    Unbelievable.

    What is not talked about enough in the Ukraine war is just that.
    Russia’s goals are all economically motivated.

    The areas they want are the ports, the nuclear plant, the high mineral areas.
    Ukraine has 5% of the world’s mineral sources.

  43. unbelievable Says:

    To follow up more on pricing w/ regards to natural gas:

    Despite supply being at an all-time high, so too is demand. And we now export a huge amount of our natural gas from LNG terminals, which was not the case many years ago. So domestic prices have to take into account global demand, not just domestic, AKA you’re factoring in Europe’s needs with the Russia-Ukraine war, etc…

    The pros and cons of capitalism I suppose.

  44. unbelievable Says:

    @geno – 100%.

    All those minerals, all that grain, etc. Russia’s motivations are very clear and about much more than simply wanting to bring Ukraine back into the motherland.

  45. gp Says:

    It had everything to do with our military and our influence over other countries.
    I believe the term you’re trying to present is “stability”

    It was our stability that influenced other countries.

    Sadly, some of the decisions out of Washington over the past twenty years, especially relating to energy policies and the supposed environmental crises, have eroded that trust in our stability.
    Otherwise, we wouldn’t even be talking about the “petrodollar”

    Natural gas is a byproduct of the “pumping” process, not the refining process. Where oil is pumped, natural gas is collected.
    Connect the dots

  46. mark2001 Says:

    Sure, I did GP. I have stocks in a number of them. Analyzed charts, daily news, earnings, dividends, trends, technical and various financial analyst insights. It just takes a couple hours a day to keep up on top of it. Very interesting to play with it in retirement. How else am I going to make money in such a turbulent global stock environment.?

  47. mark2001 Says:

    It is the game of games. And even if the wife just says it is my play money and she doesn’t care what I do with it, I don’t like to lose games. And to see how these businesses operate worldwide is very interesting.

  48. mark2001 Says:

    Don’t look now. You think the Saudi’s only have oil? From the WSJ yesterday.
    RIYADH, Saudi Arabia—Saudi officials are wooing top mining companies to help exploit untapped mineral deposits in the kingdom that could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, as the world’s biggest exporter of oil accelerates plans to build new industries away from hydrocarbons.

    The fourth-largest net importer of minerals globally has a small domestic mining industry despite unverified estimates putting its mineral wealth at over $1.3 trillion, including deposits of copper, zinc, phosphates, uranium and gold. The results of a new survey are expected by 2027.

  49. mark2001 Says:

    BTW.. to make it clear, it is real money. I guess you could say I’m playing with a bit of the kid’s inheritance. But nice of the wife to look at it that way. She calls it the money I can play with… hence my play money.

  50. unbelievable Says:

    gp if you think it’s only decisions from the last 20 years, and only about energy / the environment, I’m not sure what to tell you.

    And it had nothing to do with “trust in our stability”- it was our military. And our economy. Both of which we still have BTW. The difference is other countries have industrialized and built larger economies as well over the past 50 – 60 years (with plenty of American money going into them of course), giving them more economic power and influence.

    Pros and cons to capitalism. Pros and cons to globalization.

    And that same US petrodollar American dominance has also caused pain for a lot of other countries. To think the rest of the world has / will / would always want the US to lead the way is naive.

    I’m not really sure why seem so resistant to me telling you the facts about our current production. “Where oil is pumped, natural gas is collected” is a gross over simplification of the process, but refining is a hugely important part of the product life cycle.

    Production of natural gas in the US is at an all time high.

    Production of crude oil is about 5 – 6% off from the all time high, which came right before covid, (and quickly dropped when domestic production was reduced).

  51. gp Says:

    When budgets are hammered out for the gubmint, they are based on an annual increase for every agency. If that expected increase is not met(say 2% instead of 5%) that agency cries foul and complains about a “cut” in their budget. If there is no increase it’s considered a “draconian” cut and all hell breaks loose. If there’s an actual cut and their budget is reduced from the previous year? ……

    Industry is constantly growing and as such so does it’s demand for raw materials and energy.
    If the demand grows by 5% a year but the supply only grows by 1% then that is perceived as a cut.
    If part of the supply reduces by 5% while another part increases by 1%, well then, by gubmint standards, that’s a massive draconian cut.

    Can you see any connections here?

  52. gp Says:

    Production of natural gas in the US is at an all time high.

    A 1-2% increase where “natural” demand increases are 5% or more is tantamount to a cut. Especially when production would have been able to keep pace barring certain decisions and restrictions out of DC.

    Add to that the reduction of 5% of crude when production would have, again, increased barring certain decisions…..

    Are you starting to connect the dots now?

  53. unbelievable Says:

    @mark – yes those are some the types of infrastructure projects that those countries are getting help from larger BRICS nations on…

    you and @gp (and anyone else) Would probably be very interested in reading ‘Dispatches from Zohltan’, which are macro economic outlooks from this guy Zoltan Pozsar at Credit Suisse.

    There are links for them floating around online. He puts one out every few weeks.

    Anyways he dives super deep into all this stuff, how the US for the first time in a long time will be feeling the effects of geo-political turmoil in our domestic markets and lives for the foreseeable future, due to this new multi-polar world that has been building for years. He goes into detail about all the ongoing relationships and deals between Russia, China, BRICS, OPEC+, etc., the history of the US since post WW2, etc.

    He’s a financial guy, so a lot of this has been coming from the viewpoint that the FED doesn’t actually have the power to tame inflation this time. Basically arguing that current inflation is not simply from the stimulus / money supply increase + supply chain dispruptions (though that played a part) but rather its coming from what is essentially a new world war- an economic war.

  54. unbelievable Says:

    @gp – I already said we had more demand.

    We also are producing more than ever. You realize both things can be true, don’t you?

    Yet you claimed “the US severely curtailed production of natural gas meaning that Russia is now their only viable source of fuel.” and “Because we have cut back so severely on production, the “petrodollar” is at risk, also in Russia’s favor.”

    That’s just no true. If you want to say global demand has outpaced domestic production… well of course it has. lol

  55. unbelievable Says:

    lol you are grasping at straws, that’s not it that works.

    Oil and natural gas production are measured in finite amounts. An increase in demand doesn’t changed how much was produced lol.

    If you wanna talk about a “surplus” vs a “deficit”, go for it. That’s not the same thing.

  56. mark2001 Says:

    Unbelievable. El-Erian, who I find very interesting, and others have talked about not just a traditional recession as we have experienced every decade or so, but a paradigm shift in fundamental precepts, and it might be very different this time. Just today, some advisors were saying 3% might be the new 2% inflation rate, because the Fed. medicine to drive the economy that far down to achieve 2% might be untenable.

    Have to give the Saudi’s credit. They cover all their bases. They know the pressure will be on fossil fuels in the future, with climate change pressure worldwide. The US isn’t screaming nearly as much as some of the impoverished nations of the world. The Saudi’s will make proverbial hay while the sun shines on oil and be prepared with those rare and precious metals in the future to not only profit from, but to be a major player in the new resources that will eventually replace fossil fuels as the worlds “mover and shaker”..

  57. gp Says:

    gp if you think it’s only decisions from the last 20 years, and only about energy / the environment, I’m not sure what to tell you.
    *********************************************************
    OH, by all means, no.
    But to list all the little variables would probably crash Joes server!

  58. gp Says:

    un
    I apologize for falling into the “context trap”
    *************************
    *** production would have been able to keep pace barring certain decisions and restrictions out of DC.
    ************************************************************
    This still holds true though.

  59. gp Says:

    Back to the original argument
    Solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines are actually more toxic to the environment than the coal, oil and gas that they are supposed to replace.
    End of story.