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

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 13, 2026, 3:49 PM UTC

mint5 wrote: post #206

mgfist wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 preside…

“ For the US, the only pain is inflation” 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…

Post by thiagoharry » Wed, May 13, 2026, 4:35 PM UTC

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #419

watwut wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't believe you. Do you have proof? Iran is pretty damn closed off from the rest of the world so I have a hard time believing that you have some great insider knowledge about this. They are not entirely closed off. Apparently there is a communication going on around closures, because I have seen fairly inside Iran info in French media (about executions, about people leaving Teheran etc etc). They are more guard…

Why did the Islamic government import militias from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and put them on the streets if they already have organic support that wants to fight for Iran? That makes no sense, especially when the Islamic government is running short on funds, hiring foreign enforcers that they don't need would be a waste of limited funds.

Post by lovich » Wed, May 13, 2026, 5:30 PM UTC

caminante wrote: post #428

lovich wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Post by caminante » Wed, May 13, 2026, 8:10 PM UTC

lovich wrote: post #475

caminante wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Alright I guess this is a preexisting term but it seems as poorly named as the academic definition of racism when it comes to using existing English words in highly specific contexts. Recursing back up to the original level then I’d say who cares if demand for oil specifically goes down? We still get energy from renewables and there will still be an oil industry working at a reduced capacity for the products that are…

Post by ajross » Wed, May 13, 2026, 9:25 PM UTC

jvanderbot wrote: post #470

ajross wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the principle was free trade Trade was free in the gulf, pre-war. > and some mixture of "we dont negotiate with terrorists" Negotiate for what? Iran was making no demands. Pithy or not, you seem to be just being obtuse. You're taking as a prior that there was a threat, something for which you (and the administration) have absolutely no evidence. And to repeat, in a PRACTICAL sense, even nodding to your incorrectly…

You're ignoring Iran's negative effects on the world, and their increasing harassing of shipping, and their support of Russian wars and terrorist actions throughout the middle east (at least). Those are worth opposing, and fall under the "peaceful" part of the statement. The effect is to (at least temporarily) cause a war, which has diminished trade. If trade was the only thing anyone cared about, we'd acquiesce to a…