re: Is it okay to complain about gas prices here?

quote:

---

We can go all the way back to Nixon you fascie

---

quote:

---

An editor of The Economist once said: “We are a paper of opinion and views. We stick our neck out and consequently risk having it chopped from time to time.” The oil price has delivered such a blow. At the end of April, almost two months after America and Israel attacked Iran, we said oil traders were in “la-la land” thinking that oil prices would fall to $88 by the end of the year. Today Brent crude costs just over $70 a barrel. Our prediction went about as well as the war.

We got it wrong for two reasons. First, we thought that America and Iran would hold out against a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz: America because Mr Trump deludedly thought he held the whip hand, Iran because its regime knew its people could be made to endure more pain. In fact, facing the fury of American motorists, Mr Trump all but folded, preventing a disaster. Since the two parties struck a provisional deal in June, enough oil has been getting out of the Gulf to reassure markets that supply is coming back online, even if the future of the strait remains uncertain.

Our second oversight was, like others, not anticipating the staggering degree to which China would be able to slash its oil imports. Crude imports are 5m barrels a day lower than a year ago, despite the fall in prices. China has cut its demand and shored up supply. Its oil reserves are opaque—many barrels are hidden from satellites underground, and there is a blurred line between official reserves and corporate inventories. But they have been shown to be a powerful buffer.

Indeed, the Economist was so embarrassed by its mistaken analysis that its staff used AI to analyze and evaluate the accuracy of some 7,000 of its previous leaders of the last quarter-century, noting that although many of its other political, economic, and financial predictions had been pretty good, its track-record on predicting oil prices had often been abysmal.

I can’t remember the last time that the Economist had issued such a lengthy and detailed editorial apology. I doubt that had even happened after its strong support for the Iraq War based upon Saddam’s fictional WMDs turned out to be so disastrously wrong. Indeed, the Economist had shoved that colossal blunder so far down the memory-hole that around the twentieth anniversary it published a column condemning all the elite consensus behind that geopolitical calamity without even acknowledging that it itself had played a starring role at the time.

I can easily understand why the editors of a business magazine such as the Economist capitulated to the oil markets, and the reasons they gave for their erroneous predictions hardly reflected that badly upon them.

They had never expected that Trump would sign a document in which he surrendered to all the Iranian demands, thereby getting the Strait reopened.

They also never expected that China would reduce its oil imports by a colossal 5 million barrels per day, a figure large enough that it cut the entire global oil shortfall nearly in half.

Everyone knew that China possessed colossal strategic oil reserves estimated at 1.4 billion barrels, a total far greater than those of the rest of the world combined and many times larger than our own. But neither the Economist nor any other analyst had ever expected the Chinese to expend those reserves in order to save the world economy from the folly of America’s Iran War.

The exact reasons for this unexpected Chinese decision were unclear. Some speculated that China feared skyrocketing oil prices would produce a global recession that impoverished all their customers worldwide. Others suspected that Trump had worked out some deal with the Chinese, perhaps offering them major concessions on Taiwan. But for whatever reason, the partial release of China’s enormous stockpiles had obviously had a major effect on world prices.

---

quote:

---

Funny how this was unacceptable under Biden but MAGA is using every mental gymnastics imaginable to make excuses.

---

quote:

---

There are obviously nuances of derivation. However, if the presumption is that Trump and/or his team made mistakes in estimating resilience of the Iranian issue, I think that would be fair. I think it would also be fair to say that if gas is greater than $4/gallon entering October, it will negatively affect GOP results in the mid terms, and put limiters on the remainder of Trump's presidency.

---

quote:

---

Nuances of derivation” would’ve been a refreshing standard when Biden was in office.

---

quote:

---

What a treat. Imagine being at over 5 to almost 6 like CA

---