Yet another war, this time with Iran

[DrZoidberg]

NATO is not involved in the Ukraine war at all. NATO is a defensive pact. Ukraine is not a NATO country. So the NATO alliance hasn't kicked in.

If NATO was involved NATO ground troops would have poured in immediately. It wouldn't even be a debate in the member countries. The fact that NATO troops are not in Ukraine proves NATO is not involved

That is exactly what US wanted. Not to send their soldiers but let the Ukrainians die. Keep sending armaments so that the conflict does not end.

If this were true, why is the west pushing so hard for sustainable peace? While Russia is not. Russia wants peace, if Ukraine completely disarms. Then 6 months later, Russia will reinvade.

Like that time when Russia took Crimea and super promised they wouldn't take anymore? Or when Ukraine gave up all their nuclear weapons, sent them to Russia because Russia super duper promissed not to attack Ukraine?

Agreements with Russia aren't worth shit because Russia don't respect agreements.

 

[SLD]

Interesting analysis of the effect of the war and ongoing oil prices. If the straights aren’t opened by September, expect a serious parabolic shift upwards in oil prices.

Supermajor Warns Oil Prices Could Hit $160 Within Weeks | OilPrice.com

Exxon and Chevron executives warn at Bernstein conference that near-record-low oil inventories will push Brent prices to $150-$160 within weeks.

oilprice.com

From Exxon’s CEO:

We're approaching unheard of inventory levels. I mean, really, really low levels. You can debate whether that's going to hit those really low levels in two weeks or three weeks. Once you get to that point, then you'll see price shoot up. A model would say dated Brent will shoot up. Once you get to that really low inventory level, up to $150, $160.The models would tell you that. And then what happens is when the price gets to a certain level, demand destruction brings it back into balance. Prices go so high, it becomes unaffordable. And that's what happens. And so we're at that level right now.

Chevron’s CEO was hardly more optimistic, saying that we won’t see oil prices come back down until 2nd quarter of 2027, and only if the straits are reopened now. Trump can only lie so much about an imminent deal. There isn’t one. There can’t be one and Iran holds the cards.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But the fact remains that for geopolitical reasons removing Maduro from power and taking down the Castro regime, is in the interest of the European regimes.

How is that in the interest of the European regimes? Did Venezuela or Cuba harm European interests?

Socialism is bad for business. Democracies tend to be more peaceful. It's good for overall wealth, stability and world peace.

As a reminder, Cuba was hardly a democracy before Castro took over.

In the end, Socialism is economically important. Capitalism is economically important. They need each other desperately, because either one on its own is going to fail in a big way.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting analysis of the effect of the war and ongoing oil prices. If the straights aren’t opened by September, expect a serious parabolic shift upwards in oil prices.

Indeed. This was written the second the Strait closed. The timer started ticking.

From Exxon’s CEO:

We're approaching unheard of inventory levels. I mean, really, really low levels. You can debate whether that's going to hit those really low levels in two weeks or three weeks. Once you get to that point, then you'll see price shoot up. A model would say dated Brent will shoot up. Once you get to that really low inventory level, up to $150, $160.The models would tell you that. And then what happens is when the price gets to a certain level, demand destruction brings it back into balance. Prices go so high, it becomes unaffordable. And that's what happens. And so we're at that level right now.

Chevron’s CEO was hardly more optimistic, saying that we won’t see oil prices come back down until 2nd quarter of 2027, and only if the straits are reopened now. Trump can only lie so much about an imminent deal. There isn’t one. There can’t be one and Iran holds the cards.

Supply / Demand is a pain. You don't need to run out of something for problems to arise quickly. You just need to not have enough. And unlike chicken eggs, costs will shoot up because transport costs will become untenable. Then supply will dwindle for products, making those prices go up.

If Trump doesn't have someone in his Admin pull his head out of his ass, we'll be back to Covid-19 working from home situation because gasoline will be too expensive.

 

[bilby]

If the straights aren’t opened by September, expect a serious parabolic shift upwards in oil prices.

It's a strait. There's only one that is closed. It's actually not straight at all, it has a sharp curve.

"The straits" is a geopolitical term usually used to describe the passage between the Mediterrainean and Black Seas, which includes both the Dardanelles and Bosphorous straits. These are ~3,000km from the Strait of Hormuz.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But the fact remains that for geopolitical reasons removing Maduro from power and taking down the Castro regime, is in the interest of the European regimes.

How is that in the interest of the European regimes? Did Venezuela or Cuba harm European interests?

Socialism is bad for business. Democracies tend to be more peaceful. It's good for overall wealth, stability and world peace.

As a reminder, Cuba was hardly a democracy before Castro took over.

That doesn't magically make Castro's regime ok

In the end, Socialism is economically important. Capitalism is economically important. They need each other desperately, because either one on its own is going to fail in a big way.

How is socialism economically important? Socialism is great for social stability. But in what sense is it good for the economy?

 

[bilby]

How is socialism economically important? Socialism is great for social stability. But in what sense is it good for the economy?

It provides the infrastructure (in the broadest sense of the word) that makes specialisation possible.

I recently read a history of the London and North Western Railway Company, which in the 1890s was the largest corporation ever to have existed. They did literally everything for themselves, because nothing they wanted, existed (at least, not on the required scale). That extended to providing workers housing and healthcare, building roads and canals, inventing and installing telecommunications, supplying water from reservoir and dam building to point of use, mining coal, iron ore, and building stone, teaching children to read and write, making and distributing clothing...

Socialism is a far more efficient way to arrange broad infrastructure, such that a business can concentrate on their actual business, and just assume the infrastructure will be there to make it viable.

If it's something (almost) everyone needs, it is highly inefficient to have everyone doing it themselves. And natural monopolies cannot be controlled through competition; They must be controlled by government, if they are not owned by their ultimate customer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But the fact remains that for geopolitical reasons removing Maduro from power and taking down the Castro regime, is in the interest of the European regimes.

How is that in the interest of the European regimes? Did Venezuela or Cuba harm European interests?

Socialism is bad for business. Democracies tend to be more peaceful. It's good for overall wealth, stability and world peace.

As a reminder, Cuba was hardly a democracy before Castro took over.

That doesn't magically make Castro's regime ok

Can you follow your own conversations? You pitted Socialism against democracy. That wasn't what was at stake in Cuba. They effectively traded one tyranny for another.

And Cuban communism would have fallen much earlier if Mr. Burns didn't lose that billion dollars to Castro.

In the end, Socialism is economically important. Capitalism is economically important. They need each other desperately, because either one on its own is going to fail in a big way.

How is socialism economically important? Socialism is great for social stability. But in what sense is it good for the economy?

Stability is good for the economy.

 

[bilby]

Interesting aside - the reason why expensive private schools in England, such as Eton and Harrow, are called "public schools" is to differentiate them from the schools run by guilds and corporations. The L&NWR school might be the best school in your town, but you couldn't send your son there no matter how wealthy you were, unless you were an L&NWR employee. (And if you quit, died, or were fired, your son would be thrown out of school that same day).