Global Stocks Sink as Oil Prices Surge | Hacker News Reader

Global Stocks Sink as Oil Prices Surge

nytimes.com

34 pointsdoener29 comments

We'll see if the markets are still too optimistic here or not. I don't see how this will resolve quickly, so the Strait of Hormuz will likely remain essentially closed for quite a bit longer. I don't see any escort plans by US military ships as working, if Iranian troops actively try to disrupt this.

It's the insurance companies who are saying "no way". No insurance, no shipping.

The humanity has all the knowledge and tools it needs at this point to have anybody: individual persons, counties, countries, continents be much more self-sufficient in energy, in a way that makes economic (and all sorts of other) sense.

I am glad to personally be largely independent of molecule-sourced energy March to October. Hoping that the countries affected by oil instability take this as an opportunity to learn this lesson as well.

I mostly worry the US will now need to constantly bomb an unstable region under Israel’s horrifying “mow the grass” philosophy[1].

Both from the fact that’s horrific cost of life in the Middle East and creates perpetual resentment making the US less safe.

1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowing_the_grass

Pretty sure the US already does that. Every once in a while you'll hear about a strike on ISIS etc.

And I'm guessing there's lots of operations you don't exactly hear about.

I think what we’re getting drawn into is an order of magnitude (or more?) escalation of the regular “strikes on ISIS” phenomenon. Maybe morally on par with Israel leveling Gaza - but in a much larger country.

I doubt it.

Assuming the US does these kinds of operations it will likely target only high value targets like the rebuilding of a nuclear facility etc

So it's gonna be very targeted and limited in scope, as opposed to Gaza.

They can always claim the target was a nuclear facility.

Like this time where the bombed nuclear facilities that were "obliterated like nobody‘s ever seen before" last year.

They can always do a lot of stuff, but it's just not very likely.

And they did bomb nuclear facilities - nobody is denying that.

Even this time, excluding the tragic school event, there have been very minimal number of casualties compared to the amount of munitions being used, so clearly not a Gaza scenario at all.

So Trump‘s claim last year was BS that they totally obliterated the nuclear facilities?

Didn’t say anything about Gaza. This is more likely to be a second Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. This isn’t a movie where it ends with the death of the main villain.

It'll be like Libya but on a far bigger scale. Massive population compared to Libya.

I think their intent is to bomb Iran into rubble.

BB has pulled off the ultimate coup. He's managed to sucker a US President into doing the dirty work cutting Iran down to a manageable size with the US paying for almost all the costs. The Pentagon loves it of course because they get to "test" out their toys to see how well they work.

The Iranian people pay the highest price. The rest of us pay economically through sky high oil prices.

The US Military blew up a water de-salination plant in Iran. (Yes, I am aware the Iranians retaliated and blew up a water de-salination plant in Bahrain - but I'm sure you'll understand my point). That's arguably a war crime. So I have serious doubts that this war will be "limited in scope". Just look at who is in charge of the military. It tells you all you need to know.

Yup totally agree but this is going to be on a much bigger scale than Libya. Massive in comparison. Just think of all the war refugees. Will make Syria look like a Sunday picnic. No wonder Europe looks on in Horror.

The US most certainly does not, nor ever will need to do anything so horrifying and cruel.

That's like saying "ugh, now I need to beat my son every day, or he won't do what I tell him". Sure, if the only tool you think you have in your arsenal is violence, that seems like something you "need" to do, but in the real world, we have many other tools that are much much more effective at achieving our goals. They just...might require actually caring about other people, and treating them with respect and human dignity, and *gasp* possibly even acting like something other than the most absurd caricature of a "manly man" to ever man.

Now, what's abundantly clear is that nothing like that will ever happen as long as any party that remotely resembles the current Republicans is in power in the US. So hopefully that can be another good reason to get them out permanently.

Just checked on https://oilprice.com/. it is above 100 USD.

There was an article here (IIRC) about Climate Change and 1.5C may be reached by 2030. With high Oil Prices, maybe it will force some countries to take climate change seriously.

Trump simultaneously says fossil fuels are the future while showing how sensitive oil is to geopolitical shocks.

  > maybe it will force some countries to take climate change seriously.

lol, rofl even.

Why didn’t anyone take climate change seriously during any of the previous years-long periods when oil was over $100 and why would now be any different?

It already happened. Why do you think China showered their EV industry in government money and attention?

Smog reduction is nice, but cars were never the main offender and denial was working OK. The real answer is that they were reducing geopolitical vulnerability to oil cutoff. It's a long road and they aren't at the end of it yet, but they can plan a few moves ahead. Unlike our guy, who poked a stick into the hornet nest and was surprised by the outcome.

"... take climate change seriously" is such shallow terminology. Economically this points to a tip of the proverbial iceberg. Economics in a modern State may be compared to gravity itself. Whatever the changes to the players and the playing field, economics adds to the calculus. WHO pays WHAT price is the start of the conversation.

We need to think that there is two oil prices. one the producer gets and another the consumer pays. High producer price is the worst thing that can happen from climate change perspective. That means also the more difficult to extract oilfields become profitable and then oil in also those will be extracted and burned. If we get the producer oil price to say $5 per barrel, I guarantee you oil production will collapse to almost nothing. Obviously consumer oil price can't be $5 unless there is something still cheaper and better (hard) or taxation/emissions trading schemes that make consumers pay much more than what producer gets.

Oil Surges Past $100/barrel

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47302323

Cheap stocks. Nothing wrong with that! Just keep on buying index funds and you’ll do just fine.

Assumes a long runway before retirement.

Only if you sell your entire portfolio on the day you retire.

Ignores sequence of returns risks.

Yes there are ways to soften the blow of poor performance during early retirement, but it's still bad news for anyone relying on their 401k.

It's as if Trump was looking for another way to tank the GOP in the fall election.

Non-news.

Definitely not at the bar of HN in any case.

I know HN allows non tech news of global significance but I definitely don’t think 4 month lows of the stock market counts.

Tired of winning?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com