I mean we can't ignore the other side running garbage candidates either. DNC leadership doesn't care as much about their opposition party winning as they care about not losing leadership of their own party. That would mean all the established party politicians would be at risk of losing their job, where as republicans winning means they only lose a handful of positions while bolstering their next campaign season so they can push in more party toadies. Plus they are completely out of touch with the average American which makes their campaign messages and stated policies weak.

They didn't fall for it, this is what they want. They don't want low prices, they don't want cheap gas, they want war. They don't care how much they have to pay to get it. They want death and blood.

Engaging with their false narrative doesn't do anything but reinforce it.

Most corrupt administration. Hope all these guys do hard time.

America is not on the path for greatness? Consider me surprised.

They're doing great if you're on the beneficiary side: oil companies, defense contractors, the Trump family, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc.

All that is at the expense of the rest of the economy. The sectors that are hit the hardest tend to be, with the exception of those above, the ones who voted (disproportionately) for these people.

... which is what you get with a narcissist. The people hurt the most by a narcissist tend to be those closest or those that support them.

Depends on the political perspective. Has the US bet all on AI tech to retain its power? Yes. AI tech currently is very energy intensive. So energy infrastructure too needs money to expand. The "colonisation" of Venezuela has already secured the US one relatively cheap and secure source of energy. The Ukraine-Russia war, and now the Iranian war, allows the US to price gauge Europe on the gas it sells them ( https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-war-europe-uk... ). The Iran war is also enriching the oil companies. If Iran can be colonised, another source can be secured for the US too. Or so the thinking goes ... (there are of course other political factors that these kind of energy politics helps the US).

Hopefully oil prices stay high or go higher, helps clean tech and electrification accelerate. We are too lazy otherwise to transition off of fossil fuels faster.

If you constrained the inputs of Apple or Nvidia then their sales and profits would tumble (just look at what happened to Apples stock price in the last week because of the memory chip shortage).

Off the top of my head I can’t think of another company or industry that would profit from a supply side shock the way the oil industry does.

Yeah I drive about 40 miles a day and pay about $20 per month. I would have had to pay $350/month or so with an equivalent gas vehicle.

Hilariously, Trump will go down as the most significant POTUS in history for the transition away from oil.

Everyone in the world (except our very own kakistocracy) is scrambling to decouple from this energy source.

Is your point that such historical prices only occur when the shit is hitting the fan? Because the first time oil ever went above $100 was at the start of the 2008 financial crisis...

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oil-prices-top-100-for-first-ti...

I often wonder how people so quickly forget this. That said, the inflation we have seen since could be such that $100/barrel today is equally or more burdonsome.

In the past, yes.

Because this admin has only one person who calls the shots, it was started because he wanted it. Reports indicate that Bibi played on his ego, and recent "success" in Venezuela gave the illusion that "regime change" was easy, as well as an apparent long time hatred for Iran were the drivers here.

It is mind boggling that tens of millions of people continue to say "This is fine."

Obviously not, and a little part of me dies every time someone boils a complex issue down to an obviously wrong statement like this.

The war with Iran right now is the culmination of the war in Gaza. These are two battlefields in a larger conflict - the belligerents are Iran and its proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis) versus everyone else in the region.

Iran escalated the conflict (which previously was only simmering and involved occasional missile attacks on Israel) with the 10/7 attacks in response to Saudi Arabia and other regional powers normalizing relations with Israel. They did not properly account for Israel being led by warmongering right-wingers, nor did they account for the US being led by a geriatric man who seems like he might have dementia. They assumed, incorrectly, that the US would continue to be led by reasonable people who weighed the risks of closing the Strait of Hormuz (earthshattering) against the risks of continued Iranian-funded terrorism in the region (Israel gets more bad press and has to keep spending money on missile defense).

The goals of this war, in a geopolitical sense, are to force Iran to abandon its proxies and to lead to regime change in Iran. The fact that the current US administration is made up of morons who should never been placed in power doesn't change that. The goals of any war are best explained by geopolitical factors and not whoever is in charge, because geopolitical factors are real and enduring while presidents and kings change often.

If anything, Trump's only pressing need at the moment is to get oil prices down so that the GOP isn't completely blown out in the midterms by $6/gal gas prices. Oil companies making money is not the cornerstone of US foreign policy, no matter how often people like citing it.

This isn't going to happen because Hormuz is likely to be closed for years to come. Eventually domestic economic pressure will force Iran to the negotiating table; the regime needs to sell oil almost as bad as Trump needs low gas prices. God willing all of the parties involved will have better leadership by then.

would you buy chevron stock now ?