This is basically self inflicted, as usual messing up in the Middle East always ends up with consumer paying the price for their ruler's stupidity
"Oh no, my drinking water tastes like crap after I pooped in the well"
But unlike in the old days, US wins from higher prices. Even consumers wins (because they make more money on average, and their imported goods are cheaper because balance of payments shifts in US favour because of oil exports).
Voters are furious because of psychological factor of gas prices (purely psychological, it has nothing to do with economy or people's purchasing power). It bites politician's asses real hard.
So, Trump undermined himself by launching that war - but others are fine.
Do they make more money on average? Does any additional income cover the increase in cost of living? Becoming psychologically poor is much harder than becoming psychologically rich. I doubt that balance of payments goes anywhere near your average Joe’s pocket.
It absolutely does because balance of payments = exchange rate, and average Joe is poor and consumes disproportional part of imported goods vs the rich.
The overwhelming amount of expenses is for domestic products; lumber, food, services, rent, etc. Cheaper foreign shit isn't going to be meaningfully felt by the majority.
The part where the rich come in, is that the rich will disproportionally feel the upside of selling the fuel. The people on below average wage are just going to see prices rise and meager savings dilute, long before their wages grow.
Thats not to say the US isn't going to be well of as history's largest energy producer ever, but the reshuffling is going to be extremely painful for a majority of Americans.
All of that depends on the strength of the Dollar, If the US is to deindustrialise as it aims too it needs a weak dollar.
Secondly theres the Petro-dollar which depends on the Middle East states Reinvesting their profits in the US to keep the dollar strong I don't know if you checked but I don't think they are going to be making any money in the near term. So looks like the dollar will be falling anyway.
Further to that there is the global debt system which largely relies on buying US treasuries if countries get squeezed by the coming inflation, theres the chance these get dumped on the market and if that happens I believe the term is "Well, Fuck."
> If the US is to deindustrialise as it aims too it needs a weak dollar.
Typo for "reindustrialize"? Is the idea to move people from well paying comfortable services jobs to uncomfortable repetitive lower paid factory work by forcibly lowering their standard of living?
>"Typo for reindustialize" We invented the language first so I'll use it as intended.
The plan is for the US to not be dependent on the rest of the world (China) for its needs.
I think GP wasn't pointing out your "s" but rather your "d" at the beginning. At least, I also assumed that you meant "reindustrialise" rather than "deindustrialise".
De-industrialize, which should not be a new surprising word, as the appalachian factory belt (now mostly rusted out buildings) has existed for decades.
I'm trying to imagine your painted scenario in a positive light ie; "everyone has well paying comfortable service jobs."
Do you feel that the rest of the world will just allow itself to become the "butler" of the US, so we can all make $50 usd an hour doing easy jobs? Of course not. As the dollar weakens, and imports rise, we only get skewered more, while our "comfortable service jobs" become worthless.
Calling people's anger purely psychological is simply wrong and extremely out of touch. Perhaps you personally are in a privileged position where this is all great, but most people aren't. Most Americans work a regular job and don't have a huge amount of wealth. They make the same amount they did at the beginning of the year, but all of their expenses have increased by a significant amount since then.
Maybe down the line they'll be able to enjoy marginally cheaper socks or TVs or whatever, but that does nothing to help them afford higher gas and grocery prices this month.
While this isn't the best way to address the issue, the US is way too dependent on gasoline/diesel for transportation. It's not sustainable.
Being unsustainable isn’t the same as breaking within the lifetime of the people making the decisions. The average US senator is 66, and that’s young compared to the current Supreme Court or the sitting President.
Maybe Trump is secretly for "the green agenda" and this was all part of the plan to stop oil.
He had that big falling out with Elon so that he can't be accused of pandering to him when electric car sales go through the roof.
I have also heard that this is really "big oil's" plan, they always manage to cause a huge price spike just when green energy is about to take over the market, somehow this stops the green revolution and forces everyone to go back to using fossil fuels.
Haven't you heard that thanks to Trump and the Republicans, the start-stop engines are now banned and gas stoves are back? Have you heard the cries of joy every time this has been mentioned in Republican rallies?
Also apparently a $5000 “dividend” for everyone if we just “do the right thing”. I thought you had to be profitable to pay a dividend, but apparently not. Oh also, that $1.5T will magically not add to the debt or come from tax dollars.
>In Brown v. Hartlage (1982), a Supreme Court case where a Kentucky county commissioner promised to reduce his salary if elected, the Court unanimously drew a line between policy promises and vote buying. “A candidate’s promise to confer some ultimate benefit on the voter, qua taxpayer, citizen, or member of the general public, does not lie beyond the pale of First Amendment protection,” Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote. Given that precedent, Trump is almost certainly within the bounds of the law (you might remember Elon Musk wasn’t charged for handing out $1 million checks to people during a campaign rally in Wisconsin in exchange for “taking the time to vote.”).
This is an asinine decision that essentially makes vote buying totally legal. We see this trick with the recent Supreme Court decisions that essentially make racial gerrymandering legal again by just making the crime impossible to prove by accepting any other justification at face value.
Yeah. I'm not sure how a strict reading doesn't end up with obvious policies ending up making all of the policies below "vote buying":
There is always a state of "this policy upside is contingent on voting for me" - though in Trumps case he is making it contingent Not on his own electoral outcome in some sense. Just messy.
Don't forget: you can accept bribes as long as you receive them after the fact <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._United_States" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._United_States I guess I will never pay another restaurant bill again, since any possible future "gratuity" I might award them would of course have no bearing on their past decision to bring me a plate of food.
That's a problem if you live in a country with politically illiterate voters. That's why education is so important in democracies so people don't fall for such crap
> But we can easily affort 500+ million per day for faraway foreign wars! That, no problem.
That's because War is a wealth transfer program to the billionaire class. Look at the stock prices of the Big-5 War Companies of the Corporate States of America. Look at the wealth of their executive boards and CEO compensation - which has increased even more in 2026.
They did not revoke "the subsidies." The ACA subsidies are still in place. What was allowed to expire was the temporarily increased COVID subsidy levels, which were sold as a temporary emergency expansion. If they had originally passed a genuine and permanent ACA expansion, rather than an expiring one, there's likely nothing that could have been done to "revoke" it by those currently in power.
Maybe you mean this, but it's important to be clear about the distinctions we don't mislead people, and then someone tells them the whole truth, and then they wonder what else we were wrong about.
Well if that consoles you, the US government has just approved gifting mega-bombs to Israel for another $2.8 billion. Several news call it a "sale" but it's actually a gift since most of the money comes from the US government anyway.
Nothing in the post you are referencing came off as antisemitism. Please do not conflate the arming of a militaristic apartheid regime with criticism of blank checkbook legislating.
The antisemitic Claude puts the total US grants (= gifts) to Israel in the past 5 years to $33 billion, which my antisemitic calculator puts at $6.6 billion/ year. Of course these gifts allow Israel to fund its own healthcare while it bombs other people for free.
standard israeli psyop tactic: use jewish people as human shields from criticism directed at the state of Israel by trying as hard as possible to conflate antisemitism with negative sentiment towards israel.
Eh, how is this self-inflicted, when you have a radical has-been-empire blocking a global arteries by waging relentless proxy wars. Stop it with the "only white people can be actors on the global stage"-ism, the us basically clashes with Iran once every president (directly or indirectly) - and not by choice.
Well, you can play “who started it” to no end, but technically direct country-to-country assault started with Iran’s missile barrage on Israel.
Now of-course this was preceded by the killing of IRGC members in Syria (and some by beeper casualties in Lebanon), but they were there handling Hezbollah attacks on Israel.
Are you referring to the start of the 12 Day War here? If so, are you leaving out Israel's unprovoked airstrikes on Iran out of ignorance or dishonesty?
It was blatantly obvious Iran would do that if attacked. This has been known for decades.
The only thing previously stopping them holding the strait "hostage" was the threat from the US of doing an "Operation Praying Mantis v2" and destroying their navy and attacking them.
And when the US did that anyway, they had nothing to lose.
And Iran attacked. Relentlessly every day up to that war. It does not get into western news much. But in Lebanon. In Yemen. In iraq. In ghaza. There proxies marched and attacked. The west is to weak, to wait for another pearl harbour.
I am no fan of Iran but the white people in question literally went there to wage war with the so called has-been-empire and got their butts spanked, despite EVERYBODY warning them for years this would have been an unwinnable war
It does make one wonder how many nations off China's coast are taking notes on how to asymmetrically shut down waterways even against a giant modernish navy. Or Singapore and neighbors... If the world cops can't guarantee safe trade anymore things are going to get strange, and not in a good way.
qalmakka · · focus · HN ↗
"Oh no, my drinking water tastes like crap after I pooped in the well"
chii · · focus · HN ↗
ragebol · · focus · HN ↗
21asdffdsa12 · · focus · HN ↗
pkthunder · · focus · HN ↗
anovikov · · focus · HN ↗
Voters are furious because of psychological factor of gas prices (purely psychological, it has nothing to do with economy or people's purchasing power). It bites politician's asses real hard.
So, Trump undermined himself by launching that war - but others are fine.
cgio · · focus · HN ↗
anovikov · · focus · HN ↗
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
athrowaway3z · · focus · HN ↗
The overwhelming amount of expenses is for domestic products; lumber, food, services, rent, etc. Cheaper foreign shit isn't going to be meaningfully felt by the majority.
The part where the rich come in, is that the rich will disproportionally feel the upside of selling the fuel. The people on below average wage are just going to see prices rise and meager savings dilute, long before their wages grow.
Thats not to say the US isn't going to be well of as history's largest energy producer ever, but the reshuffling is going to be extremely painful for a majority of Americans.
anovikov · · focus · HN ↗
cgio · · focus · HN ↗
dakolli · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
Urahandystar · · focus · HN ↗
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
Typo for "reindustrialize"? Is the idea to move people from well paying comfortable services jobs to uncomfortable repetitive lower paid factory work by forcibly lowering their standard of living?
Urahandystar · · focus · HN ↗
kristiandupont · · focus · HN ↗
Reubachi · · focus · HN ↗
I'm trying to imagine your painted scenario in a positive light ie; "everyone has well paying comfortable service jobs."
Do you feel that the rest of the world will just allow itself to become the "butler" of the US, so we can all make $50 usd an hour doing easy jobs? Of course not. As the dollar weakens, and imports rise, we only get skewered more, while our "comfortable service jobs" become worthless.
rcMgD2BwE72F · · focus · HN ↗
wookmaster · · focus · HN ↗
rurp · · focus · HN ↗
Maybe down the line they'll be able to enjoy marginally cheaper socks or TVs or whatever, but that does nothing to help them afford higher gas and grocery prices this month.
outside1234 · · focus · HN ↗
throwaway473825 · · focus · HN ↗
Retric · · focus · HN ↗
themaninthedark · · focus · HN ↗
He had that big falling out with Elon so that he can't be accused of pandering to him when electric car sales go through the roof.
I have also heard that this is really "big oil's" plan, they always manage to cause a huge price spike just when green energy is about to take over the market, somehow this stops the green revolution and forces everyone to go back to using fossil fuels.
Arodex · · focus · HN ↗
jjav · · focus · HN ↗
But we can easily affort 500+ million per day for faraway foreign wars! That, no problem.
qzw · · focus · HN ↗
torginus · · focus · HN ↗
grim_io · · focus · HN ↗
Brendinooo · · focus · HN ↗
>In Brown v. Hartlage (1982), a Supreme Court case where a Kentucky county commissioner promised to reduce his salary if elected, the Court unanimously drew a line between policy promises and vote buying. “A candidate’s promise to confer some ultimate benefit on the voter, qua taxpayer, citizen, or member of the general public, does not lie beyond the pale of First Amendment protection,” Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote. Given that precedent, Trump is almost certainly within the bounds of the law (you might remember Elon Musk wasn’t charged for handing out $1 million checks to people during a campaign rally in Wisconsin in exchange for “taking the time to vote.”).
<a href="https://www.readtangle.com/trump-dividend-midterm-promise/" rel="nofollow">https://www.readtangle.com/trump-dividend-midterm-promise/
Arodex · · focus · HN ↗
Brendinooo · · focus · HN ↗
Ntrails · · focus · HN ↗
Brendinooo · · focus · HN ↗
recursivecaveat · · focus · HN ↗
fittingopposite · · focus · HN ↗
lenkite · · focus · HN ↗
That's because War is a wealth transfer program to the billionaire class. Look at the stock prices of the Big-5 War Companies of the Corporate States of America. Look at the wealth of their executive boards and CEO compensation - which has increased even more in 2026.
Amezarak · · focus · HN ↗
Maybe you mean this, but it's important to be clear about the distinctions we don't mislead people, and then someone tells them the whole truth, and then they wonder what else we were wrong about.
throw310822 · · focus · HN ↗
bertrayde · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
galangalalgol · · focus · HN ↗
pkthunder · · focus · HN ↗
throw310822 · · focus · HN ↗
eutropia · · focus · HN ↗
21asdffdsa12 · · focus · HN ↗
iSnow · · focus · HN ↗
bertrayde · · focus · HN ↗
Now of-course this was preceded by the killing of IRGC members in Syria (and some by beeper casualties in Lebanon), but they were there handling Hezbollah attacks on Israel.
ParentiSoundSys · · focus · HN ↗
Reubachi · · focus · HN ↗
That's for reddit not HN
m4rtink · · focus · HN ↗
pixelesque · · focus · HN ↗
The only thing previously stopping them holding the strait "hostage" was the threat from the US of doing an "Operation Praying Mantis v2" and destroying their navy and attacking them.
And when the US did that anyway, they had nothing to lose.
21asdffdsa12 · · focus · HN ↗
SanjayMehta · · focus · HN ↗
qalmakka · · focus · HN ↗
galangalalgol · · focus · HN ↗
vintermann · · focus · HN ↗
Took me a while to understand that you were not referring to the US here.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
KoftaBob · · focus · HN ↗
cyanydeez · · focus · HN ↗