I can't think of a single way in which the United States came out ahead in the war. We have
* Demonstrated that the US simply can't offer any meaningful security guarantee to it's middle east partners.
* Permanently ceded de facto control over the straits of Hormuz to Iran
* Significantly strengthened the hardliners in the Iranian regime and cleared the way for them to have absolute power by eliminating all moderates
* Spiked inflation at home and doubled down on pissing off pretty much every single country except Russia by heaping sky rocketing energy costs on them
* Exposed the perilous state of of the defense industrial base (in spite of us spending more than the next 10 countries combined). We simply can't produce enough military hardware to sustain a sustained conflict with a country like Iran. I shudder to think just how badly we will be outmatched in a shooting war with China.
All of this to get to a point where we are negotiating a deal which is worse than what we already had with the JCPOA.
I think we will look back on this as the US version of the Suez crisis, the beginning of the end of the US empire.
The US oil industry is making massive amount of money directly from the people of the US on the inflated prices, since their domestic supply and refineries are unaffected. It also perfectly matches the actions a foreign country trying to harm the US would take. There's so many terrible options to choose from!
There are much easier ways of increasing the oil prices that don't have as much drawbacks as trump's war. Of course, for _some_ reason most people and countries prefer _lowering_ oil prices.
It's not over yet, but the status quo is certainly a loss for the US. Which to me indicates Trump won't stop here, he needs something he can at least spin as a win.
I think Trump is about to lose patience with Iran again and we're in for a second phase of this war. What that looks like afterwards is anyone's guess. I'm not very optimistic.
It's not impossible that if the IRGC can't make payroll that things start to change from the inside, like what happened in Serbia. I'm not going to bet on that outcome though.
Short, medium and long-term this will spur the world to move off of fossil fuels. I'm not a fan of war, especially this stupid one, but that one benefit may be, unintentionally, worth it.
IMO the last point is a definitely plus. Defense procurement is a feeding trough for the incumbents. Exposing the current state is a required first step for any meaningful transition (not sufficient and will probably not happen this time, but required nevertheless). My 2c.
The saving grace is that China (well modern living CCP members) have never had an armed conflict. China's military ranks are people who got there by playing politics and bending exercises to their benefit rather than showing battlefield competence. There are no war vets or experienced players.
So while they might have incredible man power and manufacturing capability, everyone in that first battle will be seeing battle for the first time in their life.
China is even worse than Russia on that matter. Before the invasion to Ukraine, Russia was heavily involved in Syria, Chechnia and other conflicts and with that experience it failed miserably.
China, with all its posturing, military wise is even worse than Russia. That's why all it can do is propaganda war on social media to weaken American society.
> I can't think of a single way in which the United States came out ahead in the war.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions yet. The war is not over. I wouldn't even be so sure as to say Iran is in a good place right now.
Iran can absorb more pain than the US, but even that has a deadline. For the US, the only pain is inflation, which is more a matter of political capital than anything tangible. Trump is a lame duck president so I think he's more than happy to spend his political capital on this.
It's different for Iran. The main concern with a prolonged conflict is a lack of oil storage space. Once the tanks are full you have to cap the wells which is nigh disastrous for Iran because of the cost and difficulty of reactivating those wells later on.
To be clear, I'm not saying the US is going to come out victorious. But war is complex and it's a folly to predict any outcomes this early on.
That is not correct and the comment you replied to even pointed out several ways it hurt the US other than that
Inflation is the only Immediate pain. The other harms will play out over years.
While war games already predicted we’d run out of basically all defensive and offensive weapons almost immediately in a confrontation with China, that wasn’t demonstrated yet. Now it has been proven, but not even with China, with much smaller and less powerful Iran. We used a major portion of our stuff, it didn’t accomplish anything major, and now we’re already depleted like a paper tiger.
> While war games already predicted we’d run out of basically all defensive and offensive weapons almost immediately in a confrontation with China, that wasn’t demonstrated yet. Now it has been proven, but not even with China, with much smaller and less powerful Iran. We used a major portion of our stuff, it didn’t accomplish anything major, and now we’re already depleted like a paper tiger.
This is a positive, not a negative. It's a needed wake up call and better to get it now instead of during a war with China.
It doesn't matter who "wins" the war, it's already a strategic loss for the US, like every single conflict the US went into since ww2. If they can't just blow the problem away with bombs they invariably and inevitably fuck it up, and as it turns out you can't bomb away that many problems
> like every single conflict the US went into since ww2
Depends on how you connect conflicts to strategic aims. The US won the cold war. Could they have done so without all the military conflicts? Further, what's the best way to maintain a strong fighting force? By fighting. The US needs wars to maintain it's fighting muscle.
Then the causal chain is War in Iran -> Oil Price increase -> Inflation & Fed Rate fears -> Treasury sell-off. Geopolitical risk creates inflation shock, and if bonds sell off on war news, their utility as a portfolio hedge weakens, and capital holders start looking for new assets (stocks and property). Also, the exodus from bonds first results in a pile of sidelined capital whose eventual rotation into stocks and property and gold leads to more market instability down the road.
Also, Russian and Iranian windfall oil profits are up along with those of Exxon, Chevron, Shell etc., the arms producers like Lockheed are booming, and for some reason, ‘prediction markets’ (gambling interests) also:
I might agree but would wait until the highly enriched uranium situation is resolved, because if Iran gets to keep their approx 1000lbs all they have to do is make a simple gun-type device and sail it into New York City. It's pretty easy. If the HEU is extracted from Iran it makes everything worth the pain, and also fyi Trump ran on the issue so it should be no surprise to anybody. I also note that people complaining about depleting US munitition stockpiles are nowhere to be found when the issue of Ukraine is brought up, and all the material we give (and will give) to them.
And the reason no one brings up Ukraine is because we used more interceptors in three days than were sent to Ukraine in the entire 4+ years of war. It’s a complaint that doesn’t make sense unless one is jd Vance.
What do you mean delivery tech? Your delivery tech is a cargo ship. We're not talking about an ICBM that requires sophisticated re-entry materials. We are talking about a crude gun-device like Hiroshima, which is actually pretty easy if you google it.
It's actually very difficult to implement a change in our timeline on such a complex issue without causing a mix of positive and negative effects relative to your desired goal. It's very hard to impute whether anyone in the White House actually had a successful causal motive->plan->implementation->effect loop deliberately, but there are always high points, even of grotesque failure.
Obviously it's not NET positive, but if I had to highlight one positive for the US from their perspective, setting most of our guided munitions on fire overnight breaks the military, and the suspicion is that it breaks the military at a time when China is not quite yet prepared to invade Taiwan. It is now in a widely acknowledged catastrophic munitions stockpile crisis which Congress will have to fix via large, sustained investment; Increasing procurement rates for many systems by an order of magnitude on the low end. A year ago, and 10 years ago, and 25 years ago, it was in a severe munitions stockpile crisis according to everyone who's ever ran a wargame or tried to figure out deterrence policy for a non-nuclear shooting war
After the Cold War, we basically reduced most munitions stockpiles to a level consistent with a Desert Storm scale operation, but kept paying exorbitant amounts of money to keep defense contractors technically alive, producing a handful of units a year at costs that pay for the overhead of existing. In areas like naval procurement, the contradictions entailed by this approach combined with neoliberal austerity posturing and a lackadaisical response to delays, have combined to turn almost every major shipbuilding effort since the Cold War into an expensive failure. We are spending a remarkable amount of money on military equipment and probably getting 5% of what we would get if we spent twice that much and emphasized industrial performance rather than contractor sustainment.
A year ago, Congress and the Pentagon were carefully ignoring this for political reasons, while the MIC & foreign policy blob believes China was looking at it as an opportunity.
> It is now in a widely acknowledged catastrophic munitions stockpile crisis which Congress will have to fix via large, sustained investment;
How exactly is it positive to waste munition and thus force the congress to buy new munition? You will spend a huge amount of money to ... get where you was.
Printing munitions is not as long as scaling up production to print up munitions. Russian war showed that it will be too late to scale anything once the enemy trench in.
Until this year, US military bases were seen as an asset. They were thought to deter attacks, and in the case of someone being crazy enough to attack the country that hosted a US military base, they sold the promise of a quick and decisive response.
But for countries in the Middle East, every base was nothing but a liability with nothing but a long list of detriments. The bases got attacked and destroyed with basically zero effort whatsoever, local militaries had to step up to defend the US bases on their own dime and with their own people putting their lives on the line, and the bases basically just served as provocation and ended up with the countries being attacked as "punishment" for letting the US military operate on their land. And the US put in the bare minimum effort, if any, to defend the countries being attacked. It was basically "that's on you. Buzz off".
Europe is now being threatened with having their US bases cut back/removed entirely and I'm not sure if people are even worried anymore. People have been using the term "paper tiger" to refer to Russia these past 4 years because their efforts at war have been absolutely embarrassing. Somehow the US has made Russia look competent, and despite being against all the BS America did in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, I didn't think America would somehow show itself to be more rotted out from the inside than Russia. I always assumed the US was competent, albeit war hungry. But somehow competence has completely vanished.
And right now, East Asian allies of the US operate under the very wrong assumption that the US will back them up if China/Russia/North Korea tries something. And now that those countries know the US won't do shit, there's a non zero chance that they've taken war plans from purely hypothetical plans to "we could actually do this" plans.
The situation in Europe is even more crazy. The US needs the bases in Europe to project power in the Middle East. If every country in Europe would ask the US to leave then the US would have a very serious issue projecting power around the world.
The US bases are also pretty expensive to set up. Lots of logistic support has to be in place to let those bases function. That require a lot of support from the host country. Normally, you would expect the US to be friendly with the host countries, but that seems lost on the current administration.
What is really wrong is that it is known that russia is fighting in Ukraine with drones designed in Iran. And we have seen how hard it is for US designed weapons to deal with those drones. To the point that a lot of development is happening in Ukraine to deal with this problem.
By attacking Iran, the US has shown the world that Ukraine is the weapon supplier of choice against future drone wars.
> The bases got attacked and destroyed with basically zero effort whatsoever, local militaries had to step up to defend the US bases on their own dime and with their own people putting their lives on the line
As a US citizen, I hope more countries come to this realization and start rejecting these.
It's such a lose-lose for everyone
The establishment and maintenance of these bases cost the tax payers so much....
If only we could refocus this massive expenditure of resources to internal domestic infrastructure...
The America First MAGA people fail so hard to understand that these expenditures on things like foreign bases and US Aid resulted in far greater returns for us. It's never been about altruism or the greater good.
I say this as an anti-empirical leftist with no great sympathy for the effort, but for those proclaiming to put America's interests above all else it's just such an obvious and idiotic short-sighted self-own.
>The establishment and maintenance of these bases cost the tax payers so much....
They supported USA's hegemony, extension of soft powers - essentially (not a quote) 'we trade with USA because they're our partner, they help us with defence against tyrants'. Except, when USA vote in a fascist tyrant.
Many bridges have been burned.
USA is just like a company taken over by venture capitalists, and just like such a company those capitalists look like they'll run it into the ground and make off with all the money.
Well, European partners are looking, too - and they are drawing logical conclusions, such as producing more interceptors locally rather than wait years for the first batches of PAC-3.
i dont understand why the hardliners are bad they were right. the war waged against them was threatened to be nuclear "an entire civilization will die tonight". the country threatening iran unjustly is indeed the great satan. no justification except for being egged on by our hyper aggressive expansionist apartheid proxy israel. we should pay reparations.
The US was not supposed to come out ahead. This is crony capitalism. Think about all the money Trump JR can make selling drones and all the VC companies benefiting from defense spending!
Probably going to juice EV sales is the only positive I'm taking away from this. Trump might end up being the person who tipped the balance and kills the ICE car.
(Once ICE cars fall below a certain percentage, they will have structural disadvantages to EVs because ICE engines are so expensive to design.)
When the average United States citizen gets hurt, this means "liberals" get hurt - where "liberal" means anybody who might believe in lofty ideals like Constitutional rights and hasn't thrown in their lot with a hollow New York con man. I have tried and tried to steelman, but from everything I can tell this is really the only concrete policy mandate behind Trumpism. It's a death cult.
You can save a lot of time and just say you're voting for the current regime because that's exactly what "throwing your ballot in the trash" accomplishes.
Criminal investigative files are not typically released to the public for extremely, extremely good reasons.
The only administration that did anything wrong with regard to Epstein is the one that (stupidly and maliciously) promised to release them and then (stupidly and maliciously) declined to do that.
>I can't think of a single way in which the United States came out ahead in the war.
The stock market did, which is amazing if you're the top 10% of asset owners who own 50% of the country's wealth.
>except Russia by heaping sky rocketing energy costs on them
Russia doesn't benefit from this energy spike, since its biggest customers, China and India, have long term contracts that Russia can't just rip and renegotiate to charge spot prices, since they're in a pickle right now and depend on imports to keep the war going while not being able to sell to too many nations so they're stuck watching potential earnings go past them.
> Data suggests that Moscow has already made billions of dollars of additional
> revenue from oil sales because of higher crude prices, as well as the fact
> that the United States temporarily rescinded sanctions on Russia to rein in
> global costs
They probably had a few stock owners in mind, which came ahead and keep coming ahead with strategically planned transactions placed right before another US major move - all by pure coincidence of course.
Those are real wages. We would expect to see that during a sudden jump in inflation. Wages tend to lag inflation.
The other interesting part in that article is that excluding fuel and food still shows 2.8% inflation - only 1% attributable to food and fuel. Makes it seem like the main article and this article have different spins.
Edit: Wow people are jumping on this. The point is that food and fuel increases account for about 26% of the overall inflation number, meaning that the bulk of inflation is not related directly to fuel. The original article makes it it seem different.
I will say, this past inflation spike has completely broken the assumptions I had from 1970s economics that employers would raise their 'cost of living' raises to keep pace with inflation. My employer seems to think 2.5% is fine, as they've done it multiple years in recent past with only one extraordinary year netting 4%. I am now very skeptical of any so called 'wage price spiral'
What do you mean by this? If adding food and fuel raises CPI by 1%, then the food and fuel prices have necessarily raised by _more_ than the combined 3.8%.
Fuel and food are excluded from core inflation not because they're unimportant (they are in fact incredibly important) but because they are much more volatile in price--going up and down in bigger increments--so that you get a more stable view of inflation by excluding them.
Most SWEs are not top 5%. The median is about $135/yr, and a significant portion of us make under that.
The point was that a 1% increase in inflation due to food and fuel wasnt the end of the world. Does a 1% cost of living increase hurt? Sure, for many people on the margin of making ends meet it can be bad. For most people, $1 more out of $100 is survivable.
I think you're misinterpreting that. Everything other than food and fuel went up 2.8%. Everything (including food and fuel) went up 3.8%. Therefore food and fuel went up more than 3.8%.
We can see that advertised on every corner, too. Gas costs for me locally went from $3 pre-war to over $5 now. My "investment" in EVs and solar is feeling really good right now.
The tidbid is that Maga voted for a lunatic who campaigned against "more wars", and then immediately started a war, wait it's not technically a war, it's a series of "special military operations" so he can bypass congress, in order to do insider trading, while workers and consumers get poorer.
Part of the reason people voted for "no more wars" was because of the long history of more wars from both parties. Desperate people make desperate choices.
This point came up in a discussion of whether the Iran war is the first US war to be started and lost by the exact same team. Vietnam was floated, but they had a few shift changes before defeat was clear.
Yes, MAGA ran on a broad platform of chaos, griefing, and personal vendettas. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots and know war was on the agenda.
aside from the first term? guy lost his marbles after 2020 but there were no new wars in the first term and that was evidence. turns out he has different handlers this time. and dementia. but there were 4 years with no new wars. I liked that.
Well, when the rich control both sides and both sides conspire to create drama to continue to control the country as they want....can't really do much. This country is done for.
The rich being in control of both sides does not make both sides equivalent when it comes to impacts on the commoner. The country is done for in large part because too many apathetic people are unable to discern very real differences in their political options, and instead of participating, you eject and poison the well on the way out which is exactly what the "rich" want you to do. You're not high-minded for your stance, you haven't figured out some secret, you're quite literally playing into their hand. Go vote in a Democratic primary and do something useful with yourself.
If you seriously think Biden was the same as Trump (or Harris would have been worse than Trump) you need a lobotomy (as at least a refresher high school civics course).
Seriously, it was (almost) all spelled out in Project 2025. That's what the country wanted and that's what we got/are getting. I hate it, but apparently 51% of voters disagree with me.
I voted for the only candidate (Chase Oliver) that appeared on my ballot that was basically 100% certain to not get us into wars, and I've had absolute vitriol spewed at me (including here on HN) because I was informed it was a default to Trump.
There's no way to act where you won't be hated by someone. Even if you stop paying taxes for the bombs someone will scream that you hate old people or the children.
Idealism is for the primaries. You knew with certainty that Chase Oliver wasn't going to win the presidency, which meant you were okay with either of the two candidates that definitely was going to win the presidency
wages have stagnated for decades now. N o o n e in the USA cares when it comes to keeping wages low at the benefit of the rich. And of course, N o o n e is defined by journalists, federal government, and billionaires.
The very first time I thought "That's it, Trump is done, it's over" is when he complained wages were too high in the US.
Clearly he thought it was a gaffe as he denied saying it shortly after saying it twice in two videotaped appearances. But he sailed on through that and many other misteps.
The US has literally never honored a deal with Iran. Iran has no reason to negotiate with the US. The US either has to back down, put boots on the ground, or sit and wait.
If the government survives, they had a quiet infrastructure investment from China they can activate to rebuild their damaged facilities.
I understand it is a complicated calculation but to me personally, inflation feels much more than that. I have been tracking the price of milk. Around 3 months ago, i was getting a gallon of milk at $2.97, then it went up to 3.07, then 3.25. Yesterday I paid 3.40. That's like 15% gain on something as basic as milk. All numbers from the same store.
Because real inflation that people feel is always much worse than the actual number. No one cares if the TVs got cheaper but everyone cares if milk and eggs are more expensive. The average number will still tell you inflation isn’t that bad. Plus variations in local pricing can affect people much more. Dense cities will see a much higher inflation rate than rural areas.
One thing I have noted during this inflationary period is that individual stores/chains are gaming pricing much more than I remember before.
For example, your store might be competing for business using the headline price of eggs and making it up on milk and bread. In our city, Whole Foods was the cheapest non-warehouse place to buy eggs for a while. Anecdotally, it looks like one could save a relatively large % on various goods simply by going to a different store, which was not the case a few short years ago.
Relative pricing stability appears to have collapsed, shopping is more intellectually-intensive now.
You are right and we did shop around for a while to optimize for the best value for the price we were paying. We ended up on a store (Aldi, in this case) which overall had the cheapest basic groceries.
Inflation itself is not a good metric as soon as you leave the avg.
You are on HN, the chance you are part of the american average is very low.
That 15% cost is not relevant if you don't drink milk. Its also a lot less if you are able to save money. That money saved might be for something very specific like one specific car or a house.
The house market, as far as i understand it, is more decoupled from inflation than not. Here in germany a farm costs still 600k and goes up and down based on location and other factors. My money in the bank doesn't has to be inflation neutral, it should be house market neutral for the money i only want to buy a house for.
You can also choose and change your buying power. Instead of the sports car x, you can buy y. Instead of buying the city center house, you can buy the farm outside.
This is not US politics. Its global politics and it affects me as well. Independent of this, hn is not a platform the avg person is visiting. It requires a certain amount of high tech expertise to understand the conent of hn which statistically pushes the avg hn reader above the avg person.
You do know how much impact the USA has around the globe right? right?!
hey just because I am not making above median/average income doesn't mean I don't have the tech expertise. And HN is not that tech intensive. A movie recommendation for you - Good will hunting.
A better source is the USDA AMS which surveys the prices of several different milk products in retail outlets in many cities. They do this not only for milk but many common foods. The data goes back decades.
milk prices go up and down even outside inflation cycles. how do you know this is inflation. price of milk at your local grocery store in last 3 months is not enough data to attribute causation.
you’re not totally wrong but it’s not the outright lie you seem to imply. things like tweaks to the “standard basket” that they claim are in line with consumer preferences, which themselves changed because of inflation, for example, are one way we get a sort of hidden shrink flation.
I disagree and think GP poster is right on the money.
There are many ways in which inflation numbers are cooked; just one of them is the hedonic adjustment [1].
Others include an un-representative basket of goods.
The basket of goods is adjusted every 2 years, but not necessarily in a way that mirrors the way real households adapt their spending patterns to increased prices.
Owner equivalent rent (LOL) massively lags behind home prices.
Honestly, when 10s or hundreds of millions of people's perception does not match *Official Government Numbers*, then it's reason to suspect that the official numbers are a poor metric.
What I don’t understand is how the stock market can be so decoupled from reality. It’s a game at this point and completely disconnected from reality. Everything should be down 20%+ given oil is an input to everything and yet stocks are ATHing.
idk, I read an analysis recently that retail investors in funds like the S&P500 are breaking how the stock market is "supposed" to work since people keep pumping the same money every month for retirement into the same 500 companies (or whatever an index is funding) without consequence to their actions, so they're never punished. Line goes up. The purchasing power of the masses outweighs the old brokerage class that decided which companies succeeded based on "real merits".
I've always rolled my eyes at inflation because clearly, it's worse than the basket of goods they use to monitor. Groceries probably get incentives to keep bread, eggs, etc. prices somewhat regulated so the inflation number is muted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
A completely unnecessary war that benefits no one other than Israel and harms the rest of the world. The only positive to come from this is the annihilation of US military assets in the Middle East and an even deeper unity of the world against Zionism. It’s tough times but we will ultimately defeat this heinous ideology.
isn't correct. There are plenty of people on HN working in military contract industries, high tech arms manufacturing and such. They lobby Gov and benefit financially as do their employees.
Only certain types of contractors, and likely only in the short term.
Military contractors do well when the military has widespread support from the voters. Congresscritters will happily approve tax dollars going to the military industrial complex when their constituents view the US as the global protector of democracy. Wars like this one that aren't popular and make us look like thugs open the floor up to anti-military candidates. So yeah, the companies building missiles do well while the war is on, but the people like me who automate military fuel farms see budget cuts and projects cancelled.
I wonder if it does benefit arms R&D folks. At least, as someone not too well informed on the military stuff, it looks like the moral of the story has been that our high-end stuff hasn’t functioned as well as the price tag lead us to expect, and a bunch of cheap drones might be the way to go.
If I worked in military R&D I’d be worried that focus might shift away from the more speculative/less delivery-oriented/fun to work on products…
Hezbollah was formed after Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which killed 17k+ people, and which Israeli historian Ilan Pappé said was unprovoked. I need to look into this more.
It is bewildering to watch people in western nations side with a regime that is demonstrably -- by the regime's own messaging and actions -- against every single value said people claim are under attack in their own countries.
I would've brushed it aside as sock-puppets and bot farms online, if it weren't for the fact that I also talk to real people in my own country of all places (Norway) spout the same inane bullshit. So the propaganda is working and even seeping into meatspace, and all it takes to counter it is literally go look at Iran's own national reporting. Straight from the horse's mouth.
But no. Trump bad, therefore Iran good, I guess..?
Nobody is saying Iran is good, this war if anything has solidified the rule of the hardline ideologues in its Government, by killing off a bunch of the more moderate ones. And all this bombing is definitely going to convince the local population that you are the good guys, right? Is it any wonder why the people haven’t risen up against the Iranian regime? And all that is not to mention that the war has handed the regime control of the Strait.
And it’s fair for people to point out that the the US and Israel starting the war was illegal under international law and exactly the same crime most of the world is sanctioning Russia for… Just because you don’t like the target, you can’t ignore the facts.
I think it depends on what you classify as siding with Iran. I don't support any part of Iran's regime, but they didn't start this war. I don't support any part of Iran's regime, but this war seems to have empowered rather than destroyed the most objectionable parts of Iran's regime. I don't support any part of Iran's regime. But the actions of the US and Israel in this war have breached a lot of international rules that we would decry if it were Russia or China - and in doing so have created much more risk for countries in Eastern Europe and Taiwan.
I do not share any values with Zionism which include: genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, imperialism, systematic rape, torture, censorship, bribery and blackmail.
Going off your comment history, I suspect that any Israeli is a Zionist in your view, so genocide is on the table.
Furthermore, Iran has imperialism, systematic rape, torture, censorship, bribery and blackmail as well, and you called them your ally. From this, doesn't seem you hold those values in high regard.
I’m a leftist and certainly Muslims will be against their own slaughter. There are plenty of right wingers who hate Zionism too though. Zionist’s only allies are the heavily propagandized baby boomers, and even they are shifting away from Israel.
There was a time when USA guaranteed the safe passage of shipping, which helped secure a peaceful world order, apparently. I view this as a continuation of that legacy, but admit I only have 1-2 books supporting this view.
Everything I said was true : Bretton woods exists, and my opinion flows from that. Feel free to disregard it or correct the facts, I think that'd be a good discussion.
And yeah, USA might do dumb things that put them into a bind, but ultimately the peaceful flow of traffic through Hormuz is a goal worth pursuing for the world economic health.
This is some extraordinary up-is-down construction. Hormuz was open in February, and for decades preceding that. It's closed now. How is this situation the result of the "guarantee of safe passage of shipping", exactly?
Well unlike when he and Jerome Powell unleashed the money printer on us in 2020 and it took most of Biden's term to tame inflation, this should last as long as the Iran war. Unless there's a permanent shift in the strait or sticky consumer prices overcome the efficient market.
I've seen reporting that energy prices won't return to pre-war levels this calendar year, even assuming an immediate return to the status quo basically right now (which seems unlikely).
I find the whole thing really confusing. The facts I can see with my own eyes suggest high inflation and this surely means no substantial rate cuts (which... the market has expected) if not reduced consumer spending and risk of recessions.
But the markets think everything is... fine? So... what are we missing here?
It's possible, in the short term, but eventually the only oil flowing thru the Strait of Hormuz will be Iranian oil, and perhaps not even that. Give countries enough time and they'll rather invest in building a way around Iran than giving them money for passage thru international waters.
if everyone believes the straight of hormuz is open, even if it is not, even if 20% less oil is being moved globally, what happens to oil prices? what happens to oil deliveries?
is it possible for oil to be cheap in America while Bangladesh experiences shortages, instead of everyone paying more?
is oil the same as energy? or is it more relevant to transportation?
does it matter? suburban life is quite comfortable, a LOT of people keep choosing big single family home with yard, drive everywhere. driving everywhere is VERY comfortable. a lot of people like it. are they willing to pay more for it? does buying a house that is MUCH cheaper by virtue of being far away from a city stop making sense for 250m americans just because gas is 50% more expensive?
> is it possible for oil to be cheap in America while Bangladesh experiences shortages, instead of everyone paying more?
I think the US has been ramping up domestic oil production for a while, creating an interesting situation where (global) prices are high but (domestic) supply is healthy. Prices are up at the pump in the US, but I'm not sure how much of that OPEC+ price-fixing or "risk premium".
Oil is fungible. Oil producers are going to sell it to whoever pays the most. There is no law that says US oil producers have to sell it to US customers. Having domestic supply does nothing to insulate US consumers from higher prices.
In 2015, the US lifted its ban on exporting domestic oil. Since then, US domestic pricing has been linked to the global price.
This means that "domestic production" does not mean what you imply (which is "domestic production that must be sold in the US.") If US producers can make more money selling 100% of domestic production overseas, they will do that.
This is not price-fixing, it is the predictable outcome of a market design where US drivers bid against Asian airlines for petroleum products.
I assume this is a rhetorical question. The Strait is a global shipping channel; a lot of basic commodities flow through it. Not just oil. Fertilizer, grain, basic chemicals are dependent on the channel being open. Today, the WFP was stating that food aid to Somalia has been delayed by 1+ month because of the war.
i don't own a car, i bike everywhere with young kids. i like public transport. we're not talking about that. people fucking LOVE cars. they LOVE single family homes. everywhere, in every community.
The average family spends something like $5,000 on gas a year, maybe $10k. Gas could double and it’d be felt, but it’s still just a portion of total spend.
We’ve had $4 gas before (20 years ago?!) and it was annoying but it didn’t end the world.
The perspective from over here in HN land is very skewed.
According to the US Census, median household income in 2024 was $80,000. Add federal and state income tax* of 30%, and you're left with $56,000. Rent in lower-cost areas is around $12,000 ($1k/mo.) and health insurance (assuming ACA, not fancy private plans) is another $7000. Utility prices vary wildly but average something like $450-500 (so $6000 per year). if you don't live in a particularly high-cost area and skip luxuries like home Internet service or media subscriptions.
That's just over $30,000 left over per year for all household expenses, including "luxuries" like food, clothes, and car and home maintenance. Heaven forbid you have loans (car, student, etc.) or any revolving credit debt.
The difference between $5k and $10k in fuel costs is therefore easily 15% vs. 35% of total "inessential" spending. With food and other goods consistently been driven up by inflation and tariffs, there's just no margin for an "average" family.
(Sources vary for the above; US Census comes data from its own website, rent from TIME, health costs from Forbes, and utilities from move.org. Feel free to find better reference numbers if you doubt the above.)
*- yes, not all states charge income tax; most of the ones that don't have other taxes (sales, gas, property) to make up the gap
Energy pricing is quite easy: We have a global market, the rich people win.
The USA is responsible for this horrendes situation, the USA people will not be the people struggling and dying.
Its the poor people in every country around the globe which literaly will die, while the rich countries will just continue doing whatever they were doing.
Holidays, traveling to visit famiily and friends. It will cost more for sure but you will still do it.
The poor can't afford the food anymore because cooking becomes more expensive. going to your daily job becomes more expensive. The likelyhood of people is getting destroyed beecause the small jobs, the niche jobs are suddenly uprooted. Like the small tuktuk or the cheap and dangerous bus for 6 people is too expensive suddenly.
I have read so many arguments on this site that soft power in fact, apparently does not exist. So, you can't lose what didn't exist in the first place. So I guess a special military operation or two is no problem, according to them.
Many products are shipped half way across the US on semi trucks, that hits everyone’s pockets even if you drive an EV.
Train’s move around vast amounts of freight but they got optimized for coat per ton for coal, wheat, etc not latency. Which then plays havoc if you try and do just in time manufacturing etc using them. Airfare is simply dominated by fuel costs.
I am a climate activist and I don't want this, because temporarily reduced supply and spiking prices do not do any long-term damage to the oil companies, if anything they just make more money. What I would like to see is a steep drop in demand resulting in lower prices because nobody needs to buy oil and gas anymore.
'climate activists' wanted a revenue neutral carbon tax that would simultaneously lower everyone's income taxes. Thus giving people the ability to 'lower their taxes' with greener choices while the energy intensive activities of the rich were harder to dodge (hard to power their private jets with electrons)
You're wasting your breath. It took me a long time to realize that folks on the other side of the isle had fully bought into the 'maximal short term interest' ideology of the business community. I no longer have very much to say to them at all.
I just think it's amusing that this is presented as a very bad thing in the context of Trump, but it's what climate activists have been seeking (only more so). When climate activists pursue this goal, it's presented as a laudable self sacrifice we must accept.
Because there is a gigantic difference between "I will now change the lives of everyone on the planet just because and in a very short period of time without thinking about any long term goals or consequences" vs. "we want the planet to be habital for our children and for everyone affected by this, lets start pushing for investing into renewable energy instead of just burning fossil fuels".
Even tarifs in general are not necessarily a bad idea, its a horrendes bad idea if you wiggle your thumb around, guess numbers from 0-100 and higher, let that be printed on a piece of cardboard and present it to the world as the current leader of the biggest co2 producer and military power on the whole planet affecting suddenly everyone.
Climate activists, as a whole, have not been able to materially affect costs positively or negatively, in any sector other than maybe TED talks and documentaries.
Yeah, funny, all the people that turned away from EVs because the subsidies were going away suddenly realize that EVs and renewables are a much more resilient combo than being reliant on fossil fuels and their refining network.
* Demonstrated that the US simply can't offer any meaningful security guarantee to it's middle east partners.
* Permanently ceded de facto control over the straits of Hormuz to Iran
* Significantly strengthened the hardliners in the Iranian regime and cleared the way for them to have absolute power by eliminating all moderates
* Spiked inflation at home and doubled down on pissing off pretty much every single country except Russia by heaping sky rocketing energy costs on them
* Exposed the perilous state of of the defense industrial base (in spite of us spending more than the next 10 countries combined). We simply can't produce enough military hardware to sustain a sustained conflict with a country like Iran. I shudder to think just how badly we will be outmatched in a shooting war with China.
All of this to get to a point where we are negotiating a deal which is worse than what we already had with the JCPOA.
I think we will look back on this as the US version of the Suez crisis, the beginning of the end of the US empire.
Unfortunately not the case. There are an odd number of refinery issues happening across the US lately.
I think Trump is about to lose patience with Iran again and we're in for a second phase of this war. What that looks like afterwards is anyone's guess. I'm not very optimistic.
It's not impossible that if the IRGC can't make payroll that things start to change from the inside, like what happened in Serbia. I'm not going to bet on that outcome though.
So while they might have incredible man power and manufacturing capability, everyone in that first battle will be seeing battle for the first time in their life.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions yet. The war is not over. I wouldn't even be so sure as to say Iran is in a good place right now.
Iran can absorb more pain than the US, but even that has a deadline. For the US, the only pain is inflation, which is more a matter of political capital than anything tangible. Trump is a lame duck president so I think he's more than happy to spend his political capital on this.
It's different for Iran. The main concern with a prolonged conflict is a lack of oil storage space. Once the tanks are full you have to cap the wells which is nigh disastrous for Iran because of the cost and difficulty of reactivating those wells later on.
To be clear, I'm not saying the US is going to come out victorious. But war is complex and it's a folly to predict any outcomes this early on.
That is not correct and the comment you replied to even pointed out several ways it hurt the US other than that
Inflation is the only Immediate pain. The other harms will play out over years.
While war games already predicted we’d run out of basically all defensive and offensive weapons almost immediately in a confrontation with China, that wasn’t demonstrated yet. Now it has been proven, but not even with China, with much smaller and less powerful Iran. We used a major portion of our stuff, it didn’t accomplish anything major, and now we’re already depleted like a paper tiger.
This is a positive, not a negative. It's a needed wake up call and better to get it now instead of during a war with China.
Depends on how you connect conflicts to strategic aims. The US won the cold war. Could they have done so without all the military conflicts? Further, what's the best way to maintain a strong fighting force? By fighting. The US needs wars to maintain it's fighting muscle.
That and its trust and geopolitical influence even among allies being quickly eroded to the benefit of countries like China.
Inflation and ammo stockpiles are easier to fix.
Yeah but all of that is orthogonal to the war itself. It's not like Trump needed to threaten to invade Greenland to go to war with Iran.
https://www.ft.com/content/2e0185d1-3229-463c-8391-6dd09fe11...
Then the causal chain is War in Iran -> Oil Price increase -> Inflation & Fed Rate fears -> Treasury sell-off. Geopolitical risk creates inflation shock, and if bonds sell off on war news, their utility as a portfolio hedge weakens, and capital holders start looking for new assets (stocks and property). Also, the exodus from bonds first results in a pile of sidelined capital whose eventual rotation into stocks and property and gold leads to more market instability down the road.
Also, Russian and Iranian windfall oil profits are up along with those of Exxon, Chevron, Shell etc., the arms producers like Lockheed are booming, and for some reason, ‘prediction markets’ (gambling interests) also:
https://vestedfinance.com/blog/us-stocks/who-made-money-from...
And the reason no one brings up Ukraine is because we used more interceptors in three days than were sent to Ukraine in the entire 4+ years of war. It’s a complaint that doesn’t make sense unless one is jd Vance.
The difference is obvious.
US IC assessment is Iran is 5-10y away from delivery tech, and there's no imminent threat.
Obviously it's not NET positive, but if I had to highlight one positive for the US from their perspective, setting most of our guided munitions on fire overnight breaks the military, and the suspicion is that it breaks the military at a time when China is not quite yet prepared to invade Taiwan. It is now in a widely acknowledged catastrophic munitions stockpile crisis which Congress will have to fix via large, sustained investment; Increasing procurement rates for many systems by an order of magnitude on the low end. A year ago, and 10 years ago, and 25 years ago, it was in a severe munitions stockpile crisis according to everyone who's ever ran a wargame or tried to figure out deterrence policy for a non-nuclear shooting war
After the Cold War, we basically reduced most munitions stockpiles to a level consistent with a Desert Storm scale operation, but kept paying exorbitant amounts of money to keep defense contractors technically alive, producing a handful of units a year at costs that pay for the overhead of existing. In areas like naval procurement, the contradictions entailed by this approach combined with neoliberal austerity posturing and a lackadaisical response to delays, have combined to turn almost every major shipbuilding effort since the Cold War into an expensive failure. We are spending a remarkable amount of money on military equipment and probably getting 5% of what we would get if we spent twice that much and emphasized industrial performance rather than contractor sustainment.
A year ago, Congress and the Pentagon were carefully ignoring this for political reasons, while the MIC & foreign policy blob believes China was looking at it as an opportunity.
How exactly is it positive to waste munition and thus force the congress to buy new munition? You will spend a huge amount of money to ... get where you was.
Until this year, US military bases were seen as an asset. They were thought to deter attacks, and in the case of someone being crazy enough to attack the country that hosted a US military base, they sold the promise of a quick and decisive response.
But for countries in the Middle East, every base was nothing but a liability with nothing but a long list of detriments. The bases got attacked and destroyed with basically zero effort whatsoever, local militaries had to step up to defend the US bases on their own dime and with their own people putting their lives on the line, and the bases basically just served as provocation and ended up with the countries being attacked as "punishment" for letting the US military operate on their land. And the US put in the bare minimum effort, if any, to defend the countries being attacked. It was basically "that's on you. Buzz off".
Europe is now being threatened with having their US bases cut back/removed entirely and I'm not sure if people are even worried anymore. People have been using the term "paper tiger" to refer to Russia these past 4 years because their efforts at war have been absolutely embarrassing. Somehow the US has made Russia look competent, and despite being against all the BS America did in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, I didn't think America would somehow show itself to be more rotted out from the inside than Russia. I always assumed the US was competent, albeit war hungry. But somehow competence has completely vanished.
And right now, East Asian allies of the US operate under the very wrong assumption that the US will back them up if China/Russia/North Korea tries something. And now that those countries know the US won't do shit, there's a non zero chance that they've taken war plans from purely hypothetical plans to "we could actually do this" plans.
The US bases are also pretty expensive to set up. Lots of logistic support has to be in place to let those bases function. That require a lot of support from the host country. Normally, you would expect the US to be friendly with the host countries, but that seems lost on the current administration.
What is really wrong is that it is known that russia is fighting in Ukraine with drones designed in Iran. And we have seen how hard it is for US designed weapons to deal with those drones. To the point that a lot of development is happening in Ukraine to deal with this problem.
By attacking Iran, the US has shown the world that Ukraine is the weapon supplier of choice against future drone wars.
As a US citizen, I hope more countries come to this realization and start rejecting these.
It's such a lose-lose for everyone
The establishment and maintenance of these bases cost the tax payers so much....
If only we could refocus this massive expenditure of resources to internal domestic infrastructure...
I say this as an anti-empirical leftist with no great sympathy for the effort, but for those proclaiming to put America's interests above all else it's just such an obvious and idiotic short-sighted self-own.
They supported USA's hegemony, extension of soft powers - essentially (not a quote) 'we trade with USA because they're our partner, they help us with defence against tyrants'. Except, when USA vote in a fascist tyrant.
Many bridges have been burned.
USA is just like a company taken over by venture capitalists, and just like such a company those capitalists look like they'll run it into the ground and make off with all the money.
https://archive.is/fR8Do
It was pushed out, by force.
Well, European partners are looking, too - and they are drawing logical conclusions, such as producing more interceptors locally rather than wait years for the first batches of PAC-3.
A study a few years ago gave the US just 1 week before all its missiles were depleted with China in just a naval war.
(Once ICE cars fall below a certain percentage, they will have structural disadvantages to EVs because ICE engines are so expensive to design.)
The only administration that did anything wrong with regard to Epstein is the one that (stupidly and maliciously) promised to release them and then (stupidly and maliciously) declined to do that.
The stock market did, which is amazing if you're the top 10% of asset owners who own 50% of the country's wealth.
>except Russia by heaping sky rocketing energy costs on them
Russia doesn't benefit from this energy spike, since its biggest customers, China and India, have long term contracts that Russia can't just rip and renegotiate to charge spot prices, since they're in a pickle right now and depend on imports to keep the war going while not being able to sell to too many nations so they're stuck watching potential earnings go past them.
No? https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/05/11/iran-war-russia-putin-t...
Why does the market seem so disconnected from the general economy?
That said, it seems that the stock market is doing well in spite of this war, and not because of it. Who knows how long that will last
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/12/cpi-inflation-april-2026-.ht...
The other interesting part in that article is that excluding fuel and food still shows 2.8% inflation - only 1% attributable to food and fuel. Makes it seem like the main article and this article have different spins.
Edit: Wow people are jumping on this. The point is that food and fuel increases account for about 26% of the overall inflation number, meaning that the bulk of inflation is not related directly to fuel. The original article makes it it seem different.
With structural disincentives to leaving (medical coverage in the US), that is almost always a less-than-inflation amount.
Do employers even call it a COL increase any more? My employer "rebranded" the annual raises as "merit increases" many years ago.
What do you mean by this? If adding food and fuel raises CPI by 1%, then the food and fuel prices have necessarily raised by _more_ than the combined 3.8%.
Pretty simple - an overall increase of 1% inflation is attributed to food and fuel.
The point was that a 1% increase in inflation due to food and fuel wasnt the end of the world. Does a 1% cost of living increase hurt? Sure, for many people on the margin of making ends meet it can be bad. For most people, $1 more out of $100 is survivable.
Did I get it right?
Which wars were started by Democratic presidents in the last half-century?
1. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vie...
If you seriously think Biden was the same as Trump (or Harris would have been worse than Trump) you need a lobotomy (as at least a refresher high school civics course).
Seriously, it was (almost) all spelled out in Project 2025. That's what the country wanted and that's what we got/are getting. I hate it, but apparently 51% of voters disagree with me.
There's no way to act where you won't be hated by someone. Even if you stop paying taxes for the bombs someone will scream that you hate old people or the children.
Were they wrong?
That's what you call stagnating wages?
Clearly he thought it was a gaffe as he denied saying it shortly after saying it twice in two videotaped appearances. But he sailed on through that and many other misteps.
And with every 'next thing' the US moves further from any pretext of democracy or rule of law.
The US has literally never honored a deal with Iran. Iran has no reason to negotiate with the US. The US either has to back down, put boots on the ground, or sit and wait.
If the government survives, they had a quiet infrastructure investment from China they can activate to rebuild their damaged facilities.
It'll be better now, they killed the dad/wife/son/etc. of their new leader, this will 00% make them eager to negociate in good terms
For example, your store might be competing for business using the headline price of eggs and making it up on milk and bread. In our city, Whole Foods was the cheapest non-warehouse place to buy eggs for a while. Anecdotally, it looks like one could save a relatively large % on various goods simply by going to a different store, which was not the case a few short years ago.
Relative pricing stability appears to have collapsed, shopping is more intellectually-intensive now.
You are on HN, the chance you are part of the american average is very low.
That 15% cost is not relevant if you don't drink milk. Its also a lot less if you are able to save money. That money saved might be for something very specific like one specific car or a house.
The house market, as far as i understand it, is more decoupled from inflation than not. Here in germany a farm costs still 600k and goes up and down based on location and other factors. My money in the bank doesn't has to be inflation neutral, it should be house market neutral for the money i only want to buy a house for.
You can also choose and change your buying power. Instead of the sports car x, you can buy y. Instead of buying the city center house, you can buy the farm outside.
This is not US politics. Its global politics and it affects me as well. Independent of this, hn is not a platform the avg person is visiting. It requires a certain amount of high tech expertise to understand the conent of hn which statistically pushes the avg hn reader above the avg person.
You do know how much impact the USA has around the globe right? right?!
Example report https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/filerepo/sites/default/fil...
There are many ways in which inflation numbers are cooked; just one of them is the hedonic adjustment [1].
Others include an un-representative basket of goods.
The basket of goods is adjusted every 2 years, but not necessarily in a way that mirrors the way real households adapt their spending patterns to increased prices.
Owner equivalent rent (LOL) massively lags behind home prices.
Honestly, when 10s or hundreds of millions of people's perception does not match *Official Government Numbers*, then it's reason to suspect that the official numbers are a poor metric.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/
The best strategy then would be to know when the retirement fund money stops doing this due to age pyramid collapse i would assume.
Consumer Price Index (CPI) vs Core CPI
The above link is a little dumb because their own graph only goes up to March. But it looks like in March Core CPI was 2.6% while CPI was 3.3%.
Still, the details are in the text:
> Excluding volatile food and energy costs, so-called consumer core prices rose 0.4% last month from March and 2.8% from April 2025
and all of this to support apartheid in israel.
isn't correct. There are plenty of people on HN working in military contract industries, high tech arms manufacturing and such. They lobby Gov and benefit financially as do their employees.
Military contractors do well when the military has widespread support from the voters. Congresscritters will happily approve tax dollars going to the military industrial complex when their constituents view the US as the global protector of democracy. Wars like this one that aren't popular and make us look like thugs open the floor up to anti-military candidates. So yeah, the companies building missiles do well while the war is on, but the people like me who automate military fuel farms see budget cuts and projects cancelled.
If I worked in military R&D I’d be worried that focus might shift away from the more speculative/less delivery-oriented/fun to work on products…
What does this word mean in the year 2026?
Iran also has no nuclear weapons.
I have zero issue with Hezbollah.
It’s very obvious you’re a propaganda account.
I would've brushed it aside as sock-puppets and bot farms online, if it weren't for the fact that I also talk to real people in my own country of all places (Norway) spout the same inane bullshit. So the propaganda is working and even seeping into meatspace, and all it takes to counter it is literally go look at Iran's own national reporting. Straight from the horse's mouth.
But no. Trump bad, therefore Iran good, I guess..?
I hate it here.
And it’s fair for people to point out that the the US and Israel starting the war was illegal under international law and exactly the same crime most of the world is sanctioning Russia for… Just because you don’t like the target, you can’t ignore the facts.
So this is a dishonest way to deflect pro-Iranian propaganda.
Furthermore, Iran has imperialism, systematic rape, torture, censorship, bribery and blackmail as well, and you called them your ally. From this, doesn't seem you hold those values in high regard.
The USA was doing something to guarantee that stuff can flow through it, then they start a war, now they can no longer guarantee this?
Did they suddenly loose the power to protect this flow?
Just because USA is war mongering, doesn't mean no one else would have stepped up or that it wouldn't be better without all of this involvment.
And yeah, USA might do dumb things that put them into a bind, but ultimately the peaceful flow of traffic through Hormuz is a goal worth pursuing for the world economic health.
I've seen reporting that energy prices won't return to pre-war levels this calendar year, even assuming an immediate return to the status quo basically right now (which seems unlikely).
I find the whole thing really confusing. The facts I can see with my own eyes suggest high inflation and this surely means no substantial rate cuts (which... the market has expected) if not reduced consumer spending and risk of recessions.
But the markets think everything is... fine? So... what are we missing here?
because it took YEARS for Obama's team to get them to sign something
and he's already used up half of US war stockpiles
Iran's dictators will eat and sleep just fine for years while their people starve and get bombed to death
click on YTD here and imagine that flat-line for YEARS
https://en.macromicro.me/charts/94482/imf-strait-of-hormuz-n...
I can see sanctions though, maybe a re-shuffling of alliances where China becomes the world's default Adult In The Room.
It is funny watching economies like Japan -- where their new prime minister was fluffing Trump like crazy -- get fully screwed.
if everyone believes the straight of hormuz is open, even if it is not, even if 20% less oil is being moved globally, what happens to oil prices? what happens to oil deliveries?
is it possible for oil to be cheap in America while Bangladesh experiences shortages, instead of everyone paying more?
is oil the same as energy? or is it more relevant to transportation?
does it matter? suburban life is quite comfortable, a LOT of people keep choosing big single family home with yard, drive everywhere. driving everywhere is VERY comfortable. a lot of people like it. are they willing to pay more for it? does buying a house that is MUCH cheaper by virtue of being far away from a city stop making sense for 250m americans just because gas is 50% more expensive?
I think the US has been ramping up domestic oil production for a while, creating an interesting situation where (global) prices are high but (domestic) supply is healthy. Prices are up at the pump in the US, but I'm not sure how much of that OPEC+ price-fixing or "risk premium".
This means that "domestic production" does not mean what you imply (which is "domestic production that must be sold in the US.") If US producers can make more money selling 100% of domestic production overseas, they will do that.
This is not price-fixing, it is the predictable outcome of a market design where US drivers bid against Asian airlines for petroleum products.
We’ve had $4 gas before (20 years ago?!) and it was annoying but it didn’t end the world.
According to the US Census, median household income in 2024 was $80,000. Add federal and state income tax* of 30%, and you're left with $56,000. Rent in lower-cost areas is around $12,000 ($1k/mo.) and health insurance (assuming ACA, not fancy private plans) is another $7000. Utility prices vary wildly but average something like $450-500 (so $6000 per year). if you don't live in a particularly high-cost area and skip luxuries like home Internet service or media subscriptions.
That's just over $30,000 left over per year for all household expenses, including "luxuries" like food, clothes, and car and home maintenance. Heaven forbid you have loans (car, student, etc.) or any revolving credit debt.
The difference between $5k and $10k in fuel costs is therefore easily 15% vs. 35% of total "inessential" spending. With food and other goods consistently been driven up by inflation and tariffs, there's just no margin for an "average" family.
(Sources vary for the above; US Census comes data from its own website, rent from TIME, health costs from Forbes, and utilities from move.org. Feel free to find better reference numbers if you doubt the above.)
*- yes, not all states charge income tax; most of the ones that don't have other taxes (sales, gas, property) to make up the gap
Half of that.
https://www.fool.com/money/research/gas-prices/
The USA is responsible for this horrendes situation, the USA people will not be the people struggling and dying.
Its the poor people in every country around the globe which literaly will die, while the rich countries will just continue doing whatever they were doing.
Holidays, traveling to visit famiily and friends. It will cost more for sure but you will still do it.
The poor can't afford the food anymore because cooking becomes more expensive. going to your daily job becomes more expensive. The likelyhood of people is getting destroyed beecause the small jobs, the niche jobs are suddenly uprooted. Like the small tuktuk or the cheap and dangerous bus for 6 people is too expensive suddenly.
Train’s move around vast amounts of freight but they got optimized for coat per ton for coal, wheat, etc not latency. Which then plays havoc if you try and do just in time manufacturing etc using them. Airfare is simply dominated by fuel costs.
Do you want to say, that a specific small group of people are positive about a surge in energy costs?
How does that reflect your acceptance of the overall climate change topic you are referencing?
You do not believe in it? Or do you believe in it but you do not care? Like the latest AMOC paper doesn't bother you in particular?
Am I a climate activist if i think its very bad on one side but at least pushes more people into independent reneable energy sources?
What do you think about the thing that Trump, the Clown of the USA, is directly responsible for it? Do you think Trump is a climate activist?
Even tarifs in general are not necessarily a bad idea, its a horrendes bad idea if you wiggle your thumb around, guess numbers from 0-100 and higher, let that be printed on a piece of cardboard and present it to the world as the current leader of the biggest co2 producer and military power on the whole planet affecting suddenly everyone.
You do see the issue i hope?
They did pushed for wind and solar electricity.