Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mystery jump in oil trading ahead of Trump post draws scrutiny

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 419 posts

Re: Mystery jump in oil trading ahead of Trump post draws scrutiny

#391

Post by heyitsmedotjayb »

michaelteter wrote: post #252
heyitsmedotjayb wrote: post #19

I'm not smart enough to understand why - but surely this isn't sustainable? At some point wont the price not reflect the reality of simply not having gas to put in your car? What is going on... The price of oil went down 10% yesterday, opened +0% today and is back to +4%...

If you look at this as market manipulation as a method of generating (investment) returns, then it doesn't matter if your public lie only causes the prices to change for a day or two. As long as your people get in in the right direction before your announcement, and then get out right after the big swing, you win. Who cares what the real price is, right? - especially when you've never pumped you own gas into your car…

But isn't there some negative effect of constantly 'pumping' real value out of the economy, by inflating the price through lies and then withdrawing capital?

Re: Mystery jump in oil trading ahead of Trump post draws scrutiny

#393

Post by tim333 »

inaros wrote: post #73
unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #62

1. By a show of hands, who was surprised that the cataclysmic warnings of the weekend subsided into talk of diplomacy on Monday? 2. Let’s hypothesize the US gov’t or allies did pre-release this info to traders as a policy tool, inviting them to sell oil profitably, shaping the later price action . In a practical sense they may have brought more speculators to the short side than otherwise would have been there; is th…

If you run the numbers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47504505 You will see, that anything else other than a ground invasion, is guaranteed to give Iran a war victory.

Trump could do something like say we destroyed your military and leadership, we win, we are going home. If you do bad stuff we'll do that again.

Not saying it's a great plan but I think Trump may be thinking that way.

Re: Mystery jump in oil trading ahead of Trump post draws scrutiny

#394

Post by tim333 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #298
unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #62

1. By a show of hands, who was surprised that the cataclysmic warnings of the weekend subsided into talk of diplomacy on Monday? 2. Let’s hypothesize the US gov’t or allies did pre-release this info to traders as a policy tool, inviting them to sell oil profitably, shaping the later price action . In a practical sense they may have brought more speculators to the short side than otherwise would have been there; is th…

Not traders. Friends and family. These guys are idiots who figure they will all be pardoned before Trump leaves office, or part of the junta that replaces him if he doesn’t leave office.

Also I'm not sure insider trading commodities like oil is actually illegal?

Re: Mystery jump in oil trading ahead of Trump post draws scrutiny

#395

Post by orwin »

sph wrote: post #189
themafia wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that had an avowed goal of “death to America”. 31 million people just woke up and decided to hate America? Or.. was there a little more to that story?

The hatred has been there since the 70s, at the very least. Watched a great video on Iran from Rick Steves filmed in 2009, and when he visited a mosque there was a large sign calling for the death of America and Israel.

For anyone saying that's dumb: it's not even true. Iran real issue with the USA started with the iran-iraq war, where Iraq had the support of the US, and used US-made chemical weapons against civilians.

Re: Mystery jump in oil trading ahead of Trump post draws scrutiny

#396

Post by orwin »

CommenterPerson wrote: post #312
zahlman wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "victory" or "defeat" actually entail here? It's not as if the US risks any territory?

"If the US doesn't win, it loses. if Iran doesn't lose, it wins" .. per [John] on Krugman's substack.

War can't be won by everyone, but it can absolutely be lost by all concerned parties, even those who didn't participate.

Re: Mystery jump in oil trading ahead of Trump post draws scrutiny

#397

Post by roncesvalles »

ithkuil wrote: post #356
roncesvalles wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The loss of ability to intercept missiles does not mean that the war is lost for America. It just means that it now has to contend with more of its own losses during the war. America always goes to war with the handicap that 1 American life is worth hundreds of enemy lives. This handicap is why one gets the impression (illusion) that countries like Iran are able to hold their own against the great mighty USA. But if…

But that handicap is due to domestic politics which is a real world force that shapes the american war machine ability more than anything

If oil hits $150 and there's real pain on the streets, Americans will assent to a much bloodier war.

In fact, I suspect this "15 point peace plan" is just theater to this effect. "Look we tried everything, we're gonna have to go in and really knock them out."

Re: Mystery jump in oil trading ahead of Trump post draws scrutiny

#398

Post by vjvjvjvjghv »

pseudohadamard wrote: post #341
pfannkuchen wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if the goal was actually to destabilize those places then maybe it worked as intended?

The current lot in Iran came to power through revolution and they've made very sure that the same thing can't happen to them. The whole system of government, or at least rule, is designed from top to bottom to make as sure as it's possible to get that it can't be overthrown from within. I'm sure Trump's highly qualified expert advisors on the subject, Witkoff and Kushner, told him about this small problem before he l…

Kushner’s main interest is to get money from Middle East investors. I think it’s important to remember that. Not sure about Witkoff. His main interest seems to be to protect Putin.

Re: Mystery jump in oil trading ahead of Trump post draws scrutiny

#399

Post by pear01 »

kortilla wrote: post #336
pear01 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you appending a sentence I never said within your quote of my position? Your comment reads like you are arguing with yourself. I never suggested anything to the contrary of much of what you write, so frankly I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I suggest you re-read my comment in full as I think we are predominantly in agreement.

You suggested voting for a Democrat, which would be a ridiculous betrayal to any single issue voter Republican voting for something like stopping abortion because they think it’s murder. It’s so ridiculous on its face that I put in quotes what would be running through any single-issue voter’s head when they would hear a suggestion to vote for a different policy platform to oust a representative. You might as well ask…

I wasn't talking to single issue republicans... I didn't take the OP to be one, and I (like you) would not waste much time on one.

The point I was trying to make is Democrats can elect and nominate better candidates. But let's also not forget, single issue Republicans are not the only problem.

Institutional or single issue Democrats are also the problem. The biggest problem with Democrats is the DNC. The same people who lied to you about Biden's fitness for a second term are by and large still there. They still want your money. The DNC uses the Trump fear to escape accountability for its failures at every turn. The losers who have lost to this man for about a decade now are still there.

So I think we are in agreement, but I would add the reason more young people and independents need to vote is to replace the power structure on both sides of the aisle, not merely the one in power today. This is not "both sides", rather two things can be true. An institutional Democrat can be better than what we have today, but I think history has shown in the long run it is not good enough. What comes after this from the right in the near future may be far worse. Do not underestimate the ability for a future nominee to make the current president look like a saint... recall when people thought Bush II was a low point. It can happen again. If we keep electing mediocre Democrats, I believe it will.

Thank you for clarifying your comment, I appreciate you coming back to do that.

Re: Mystery jump in oil trading ahead of Trump post draws scrutiny

#400

Post by pear01 »

michaelteter wrote: post #281
pear01 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that complicated. Elect a Democrat in 2028 who will nominate a strong AG, not a useless ditherer like Garland. What a disgraceful tenure he had. If he was going to take so long to bring charges he should have just avoided it. Instead he takes 3 years to bring all these charges which naturally look like election interference and as such are paused until they choke the election away and the new justice departm…

Doesn't matter whom you elect, at least not as far as righting wrongs. You might prevent more egregious wrongs from happening, but convincing Congress to return to rule of law is impossible when Congress is almost entirely funded by the same powerful interests who chose to put a lunatic in charge. You're also up against a large population which has been brainwashed, and even if someone deprogrammed is still not intel…

While I broadly agree with this characterization, it is somewhat inaccurate.

> the same powerful interests who chose to put a lunatic in charge.

I don't think this is accurate as a fact of recent history. As I recall, said interests wanted a repeat of Bush v Clinton. While they may have fallen in line since, I think this picture you are painting misses a lot of nuance. The current president was considered a joke up until the votes started coming in. So I think you are painting with an overly broad brush.

Secondly, at a certain point this starts to read like little more than cynicism. What is a suggestion you have, that isn't merely one in the negative? I genuinely sympathize with your perspective, but I'm curious what the subsequent step is then meant to be.

Thirdly, preventing egregious wrongs is pretty important. I don't believe rule of law is permanently out of reach. If your basis for this is the broad brush you painted earlier well then I don't think that actually computes. And I don't think preventing egregious wrongs should be minimized, even if structural issues are a barrier to "righting wrongs" as I believe you correctly put it. Solving those structural issues is a longer discussion, and one predicated on the requirement that there is no longer a "lunatic in charge".

That in of itself, is important. Let's also remember they could have brought the cases earlier. Your comment doesn't really address that, unless you are essentially claiming someone paid off Garland to dither away for 3 years. I gather that is not your claim? Therefore I think you're being overly cynical. As I said, in many ways it's not that complicated.

Post reply on HN