US inflation jumps to 3.8% as energy costs surge from Iran war • Hacker News Board

Re: US inflation jumps to 3.8% as energy costs surge from Iran war

#421

Post by Sabinus » Tue, May 12, 2026, 10:59 PM UTC

tehjoker wrote: post #362

programjames wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the war is fought over literal nuclear weapons, you should not be so tongue-in-cheek about calling a war nuclear.

Iran has no nuclear weapons. The administration simply wishes to prevent Israel from facing opponents that also have a nuclear deterrent (Israel has nuclear landmines, briefcases, missiles, and neutron bombs according to Sy Hersh). A deterrent would radically curb Israeli aggression and maybe even end the genocide in Gaza. There is little risk Iran would use a nuclear weapon. This is pure western aggression.

How does an Iranian nuke curb Israeli aggression or change Israel's behaviour in Gaza? The vast majority of Israel's 'aggression' is against armed groups in neighbouring countries that Iran funds. If a country has a peace treaty with Israel and the monopoly on violence in their territory, they experience no Israeli aggression.

Iran can't credibly threaten to nuke Israel over a threat that isn't existential to Iran. And Hezbollah or Hamas being bombed (along with a lot of civilians) is is not that.

Re: US inflation jumps to 3.8% as energy costs surge from Iran war

#422

Post by rcoder » Tue, May 12, 2026, 11:05 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #356

rcoder wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). i…

Speaking of HN-land assumptions lol - if you think a median family making $80k is paying $30k in taxes you got another think on backorder. In fact, at $80k in some areas you'll qualify for medicaid for the family (or at least the kids) - up to $108k in CA for example: https://www.coveredca.com/pdfs/FPL-chart.pdf The clanker says that "median family with kids" makes $105k and pays total tax (including property, sales,…

In California, yes; median income is around $100k. And of course, if you have kids, a mortgage, etc., you can qualify for plenty of tax incentives. OTOH, if you have kids your food, clothing, and transportation budget are almost certainly higher, and your ability to (say) relocate to find better wages are even more limited.

I stand by the core point: the median household income leaves very little room for major spikes in essential costs like fuel, housing, and health care. Any single cost jumping from $5k -> $10k is potentially ruinous.

Re: US inflation jumps to 3.8% as energy costs surge from Iran war

#423

Post by ajross » Tue, May 12, 2026, 11:11 PM UTC

jvanderbot wrote: post #415

ajross wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definition for "naughty" and examples thereof might help. Because it doesn't mean "closed". The point isn't to make a moral argument for Iran's position, just a realpolitik one. We fucked with them, they fuck with us. They're winning, unfortunately as it might be. Ergo, we shouldn't have fucked with them.

Oh, well that's your point. My point was just that entering the war is consistent with the principle of ensuring bad actors can't act badly, esp re: trade and allies. So we both made our point.

> principle of ensuring bad actors can't act badly

That's... not a principle though? Who else pursues geopolitics by that principle? When else has the US? It's... not a thing, unless you mess with semantics to define "bad actors" as "whoever we dislike" and "badly" as "whatever we dislike".

Iran hasn't fucked with Hormuz since before most of the commenters here were born. Arguing that we somehow "had to" goad them into fucking with Hormuz in 2026 is just madness.

I mean, look: this wasn't the plan. You know it. I know it. Trump and Bibi thought they'd get a quick win, and when they didn't their bluff was called and they don't have the cards. Hormuz opens WHEN WE PAY IRAN TO OPEN IT, and not before. We've lost. The world is just waiting for the surrender.

Re: US inflation jumps to 3.8% as energy costs surge from Iran war

#424

Post by Sam713 » Tue, May 12, 2026, 11:25 PM UTC

khriss wrote: post #32

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…

Cui bono? On an objective valuation, Trump family, plus others in or adjacent to the administration, have done fairly well monetarily.

Maybe not directly from this conflict, but it’s becoming hard to differentiate the actions taken by this administration from solely that of seeking personal gain.

Re: US inflation jumps to 3.8% as energy costs surge from Iran war

#425

Post by nullocator » Tue, May 12, 2026, 11:27 PM UTC

1234letshaveatw wrote: post #320

nullocator wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy. There has been no "almost complete dismantling of the Iranian military" and anyone saying so is lying or deeply propagandized.

And all the videos are AI right?

The videos? The ones showing the complete destruction of Iranians military and rockets? Haven't seen em. What I have seen is that every time the U.S. Administration says the Iranian military is completely destroyed they proceed to blow something else up. I also see lots and lots of reputable reporting that indicates that Iran's military and capabilities are mostly fine.

The evidence of this is is literally right in front of you, how could a country with no military or capabilities hold the straight for 2+ months? The IRGC literally tweets every day about how full of shit the U.S. is, hard to tweet if you're dead as the U.S. claims.

Re: US inflation jumps to 3.8% as energy costs surge from Iran war

#426

Post by Sam713 » Tue, May 12, 2026, 11:29 PM UTC

ahartmetz wrote: post #291

nozzlegear wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Iran also basically just fought us to a stalemate, with an arguably long-term strategic victory going to Iran, just by being willing to absorb more punishment in the short term. Once we depleted our stocks of expensive weaponry we had to stop. We could win every fight and still lose the war. Iran had a different victory condition. All they had to do was outlast and not be completely wiped out. Trump's victory condi…

Trump seemed to think that the Iranian regime was unstable and would fall once the US killed their top ranks and applied a bit of pressure. Turns out that he was very wrong (and experts would have told him if he had bothered to ask / listen).

I think its poignant to point out that Trump is listening to experts he appointed, who by objective standards do not have the experience or maturity necessary to guide the ship.

Re: US inflation jumps to 3.8% as energy costs surge from Iran war

#427

Post by dh2022 » Tue, May 12, 2026, 11:37 PM UTC

mgfist wrote: post #377

dh2022 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides inflation, American has other problems like running out of missiles and bombs. This war is about attrition, and American weapons are being attrited faster than Iranian ones. The war is not over, but I would not count out the Iranians going for another strategic goal not mentioned in the GP post: make is so that the American president that attacked Iran loses the midterm big time.

> Besides inflation, American has other problems like running out of missiles and bombs. This war is about attrition, and American weapons are being attrited faster than Iranian ones. The US doesn't need to fire more missiles, it just needs to blockade the strait and force Iran to cap its wells. > The war is not over, but I would not count out the Iranians going for another strategic goal not mentioned in the GP post…

Re: "I think Trump has already conceded the midterms. He's a lame duck president anyways so it's not his mess to clean up" - this is not a serious comment. Anyone on this planet remotely connected to daily news knows this is not the truth.

Re: US inflation jumps to 3.8% as energy costs surge from Iran war

#428

Post by caminante » Wed, May 13, 2026, 12:22 AM UTC

lovich wrote: post #403

caminante wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. I assume your understanding of "demand destruction" is mixing concepts. GP said switching to alternative sources isn't demand destruction when it IS technically and relatively. The parent's point: until you get those renewables online (decade long process now with permitting), prices will go up. You'll have people using less energy (in general) and less O&G -- both are quintessential demand destruction. For…

Using less of any resource because it’s been blocked doesn’t mean the demand is destroyed. The demand can remain perfectly the same or even go up. My point was that the OP was myopically focusing on fossil fuel do demand when the real demand that would lead to switching to renewables is the demand for energy.

I suggest revisiting the definition [0]. IMHO, your understanding is at odds and I suspect you're intending to say people will replace with energy from elsewhere (which still qualifies as demand destruction).

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_destruction

Re: US inflation jumps to 3.8% as energy costs surge from Iran war

#429

Post by virgildotcodes » Wed, May 13, 2026, 12:34 AM UTC

lorecore wrote: post #346

virgildotcodes wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Investing in domestic infrastructure would generate even greater returns. Yes, through some financial hand waving, we may funnel money spent on bombs back to US military contractors, but imagine if that same money was spent on a high speed rail system. It would unlock greater efficiency and logistics with the same money staying with US contractors. That's a purely financial take and not even touching on humanitarian…

I’m very much for infrastructure spending in the US. The point of our international geopolitical scheming is to give us greater wealth and power in the end to then apply to whatever ends we’d like.

The dollar being the world’s reserve currency gives us the ability to print dollars for infrastructure projects with relatively little consequence.

This is now being threatened by our best attempts to get everyone in the world to hate us and see us as hostile, unstable idiots and unreliable partners.

I’ll also note that the America First MAGA crowd seem to also be against funding public infrastructure projects, especially the radically socialist notion of high speed rail.

Re: US inflation jumps to 3.8% as energy costs surge from Iran war

#430

Post by mgfist » Wed, May 13, 2026, 12:36 AM UTC

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #378

mgfist wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't. This is the western mentality, thinking you are dealing with sane people. I'm not talking about sanity. I understand that the IRGC is greater than the sum of the parts and that no individual life matters. I'm talking about the oil wells. The IRGC may not care about human life, but you need money to stay in power. Money that will disappear the longer you can't sell your oil and the more oils you have to…

> I don't believe you The Trump admin has pretty low approval ratings. If some very hostile country bombed the US, is your default assumption that the folks who despise Trump would somehow support the bombing? You could probably find a few crazies that would, but wouldn't you assume people would prioritize their hate towards the people blowing up their friends, family, and property?

> If some very hostile country bombed the US, is your default assumption that the folks who despise Trump would somehow support the bombing?

You're missing some very important context, which is that the IRGC slaughtered between 6,000-36,000 people in January during the protests. And they would've continued for as long as the protests lasted, and still execute people to this day.

> You could probably find a few crazies that would, but wouldn't you assume people would prioritize their hate towards the people blowing up their friends, family, and property?

By and large the strikes have been against military capability, with some strikes against dual use targets and a few unintended strikes against purely civilian targets. The famous strike on the school was because the school had been an army barracks in the past and was not properly updated. This isn't an excuse, but it's to clarify the situation.