First, we had the imbecile Putin damage the global prices of energy when he invaded Ukraine. Now we have Trump and Israel screwing up global prices. It has almost doubled. LNG has also increased in price because its energy locations are getting blown up.
At the current trajectory, it could become triple the price.
It shows how dangerous it is for Europe to have oil sanctiions against Russia - which they break regularly anyway - coupled to instabiliy in he ME.
The effect of the prices in the USA is minimal - sine hey do not need to import oil from either. The Ayatollah arse-licking countries in Europe are badly effected since - if they do not buy oil from Russia - it is dependent on the ME for oil imports,
They are not prepared to do anything against Iran promoting terrorism and civil wars worldwide as well as developing nucleasr armaments as long as they get oil from the ME. In the USA political instability and outtright corruption by the Biden Autopen Regime led to unlawful support of the A yatollah rgime by the corupt U S Presidency.
The present situation is catastrophic for the EU countries, When Iranian armed Houthi's attacked cargo carriying ships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden damaged the oil trade of Europe in 2025, they ran to the he USA to protect the shipping. The USA moved two warships to he area and wiped out the attacks in four days by bombing the Houthi installations in Yeman. Boats used by the Houthi's and Somalians to attacking ships were also been destroyed, Unlike in the case of Venezuela boats destroyed was not "fishing boats" as claimed by the fake media - so self-interest has aways been put ahead of real future threats.
Unlike under the Biden regime when oil from the USA strategic oil were corruptly sold to China and imports of oil - not necessary in the period 2018 to 2020 - was resumed by the Biden-Autopen corruption resumed, But in fact the USA do not need any importation of oil and that makes the present oil prizes immaterial insofar as the USA is concerned.
The present situation is vbad for th e NA TO cou ntries and they will doubtlessly startin g buying more oil from Russia and blame the U SA fr t heoor present vows,
So is it not time to stop arse-licking by European countries of Putin and the Ayatollah and start looking at how world stability can be restored? The biggest potential threat to NATO is not from Russia - but the empire the Ayatollah Regime wants to establish in the ME and African xcountries - but the NATO leadership is only interested in short term survival and not long term self-protection.
The farce is that the country with the strong est amy - after the USA - is Turkey and Turkey and Egypt are - other than the US A - he only countries trying to get stabilityback in the ME and North Africa - while NA TO countries pretend they are beyond protecting their long term interests,
By the weay SA also ets its oil from Iran nd today the town of Riversdale has been hit by a petrol shortage - assuming that it aplies to all S A cities and towns.. I do not have money available before 27 March for bulk shopping and hope that it would not affect the situation too badly before that date. So SA is in the same bad-loss situation as the EU countries are, SA is however in a slighty better situation - since they can get oil directly from Russia and not through third parties, In the meantime the Russians are laughing all the way to the bank insofar as long as the present situation exists.
. .
DumbMike, fact America is the largest oil producer in the world, but they still import a lot of oil.
There are different types of oil that are from different places in the world. America mostly produces light oil as a result of fracking.
The price of oil is going up all over the world. Obviously, Europe should ban Russian oil and gas.
Visser, I hope you have some dry powder waiting to put in a short.
I'll be using my gambling fund and going in with an irresponsibly big leverage short at some point.
What are you laughing at, ButtPlug? It is not just Europe that will have higher energy prices. The global price increases.
Plum, weren't you the one saying oil wouldn't go up again when it was on $87?
Nope, I'm expecting it be volatile, kind of a perfect trading range between 80 and 110. 150 is possible but if it does go there, sell everything you own and short the living shit out of the price because I promise you that is what everybody else is gonna do.
Right now, traders are overbuying good news and overselling bad news, as one would expect given the circumstances. Actually let me look at the chart quickly...
Above is the daily chart, each candle represents the opening and closing prices for the day. The thin line protruding from the top and bottom are the highest and lowest prices for that day.
Correction; it was late when I made the above - this is the 5 day chart for oil. Doesn't really change the point but have to be honest and admit I provided the wrong chart.
Look toward the end of the chart, see how aggressively the high gets sold and how quickly the dump gets bought up. To me that indicates a short term trading range has been established.
The trend is obviously up and that indicates higher, but it's also parabolic and that indicates a fast dump when a dump does come. The $120ish price from 2022 is a big resistance zone. One which could be broken on the back of some terrible news in the current conflict. The moment it goes over 120 I'll be shorting it to 95 because at that point, even if it goes up to 130-140, it's gonna dump aggressively after, probably back to 80ish, but I'll have made my 20%.
That's my analysis at a glance.
Putin caused massive inflation when he attacked Ukraine, and now it appears the same thing is going to happen.
Apparently the biggest Gas field in the world that was hit yesterday could take 3-5 years to get back to what it was. Around 20% of it was destroyed.
Fake news.
Inflation was already skyrocketing...
Here is a worst case scenario for you, Visser, since we're talking about inflation...
5 years from now...
1) Large swathes of white collar jobs are lost due to AI replacing people
2) Those employees have historically been AAA rated mortgage customers
3) They have to liquidate assets and stocks to survive and pay their mortgages
4) The US house market is currently 3 times the size of what it was back in 2007/8
5) Governments are forced to print money but the amount they are forced to print causes irrevocable inflation
6) The world's economy collapses.
Holy shit...the American's are talking about removing sanctions on some Iranian oil exports to ease the cost of energy crisis they caused by attacking Iran. You could not make this up.
Looked at the oil price today and though I'd share the quick analysis i did. Just some lunch time fun.
Seems my trading range prediction is playing out.
The highs are continuing to be sold very aggressively.
It's only been a couple of weeks since this move began, daily charts aren't the greatest to work off, and with two weeks of data one can only do so much.
To be honest though, this is exactly how i would have seen the oil price reacting to the Iran conflict - A big initial move, sold off aggressively, people buying up dips and then selling highs and ultimately a trading range being formed. I've plotted what i think that range likely is(in purple) on the chart below as well as when one should short(in green). Ultimately, an ascending triangle was formed, as drawn on the chart, and it broke down, which they normally do. Will be interesting to see where price bounces over the next few days.
Let's see how that plays out and I'll continue to update the chart if the price keeps moving as aggressively in both directions.
What's interesting is that the price touched $92 today and was bought back up to $100 quite quickly. That indicates some strength.
Oh, price is on the right of the image...
"Holy shit...the American's are talking about removing sanctions on some Iranian oil exports to ease the cost of energy crisis they caused by attacking Iran. You could not make this up."
Sanctions only drives the price up. Iran sells it at a discount to BRICKS...but still sell it while it drives up the open market price ...the sanctions doesn't help at all...I said weeks ago it should be lifted...the logical choice.
Fake news.
Inflation was already skyrocketing...
The line should be slightly more to the left.
The Ukraine war contributed to inflation and then it kept it high, effectively replacing the original causes of the inflation.
I disagree.
Covid saw US M2 rise by $5-6 trillion. The biggest money print in history.
Inflation was skyrocketing prior to the war.
...because the war didn't mark the magical turning point where inflation began trending down being used to say that the war caused inflation or kept it high is frankly laughable LMAO
FYI For the majority of the war, inflation has been trending down.
Look at the graph for God sake
...because the war didn't mark the magical turning point where inflation began trending down being used to say that the war caused inflation or kept it high is frankly laughable LMAO
I'm sorry I'll take the word of economists over you any day of the week. It had a major impact on global inflation and in the US in 2022 and 2023 and even had some lingering affects into 2024.
FYI For the majority of the war, inflation has been trending down.
Look at the graph for God sake
Tending down doesn't mean it wasn't having an effect, it slowed the rate of inflation decline.
Majority of the war, that graph just extends a year.
kl
Oh, you mean like economists at the IMF that rated the war'a impact on inflation as modest while placing the majority of the responsibility on monetary policy during COVID?
Or do you mean the European Parliament that stated that inflation would have risen sharply without the war and that stagflation was always a concern, one that was warned about long before Putin decided to enter Ukraine?
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2023/741487/IPOL_IDA%282023%29741487_EN.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Perhaps, you're talking about the FED economists who rated that the war increased inflation by no more than 1.3%? They called it noticeable but far from dominant.
Or perhaps your talking about economists at the largest hedge funds that placed monetary policy, supply chain disruption and demand rebound as all plying a larger role in inflation than the Ukraine war?
The war mattered, of course it did, but it was never a major contributor. But this was Visser's claim "Putin caused massive inflation when he attacked Ukraine, and now it appears the same thing is going to happen."
Which is, as I said, is the fakest of fake news.
And then we can discuss Powel's soft landing hypothesis. You know, the idea that the inflation caused by COVID monetary policy needed to be managed very carefully(IT WAS THE LARGEST MONEY PRINT IN HISTORY) as bringing it down too quickly would cause a recession. How the FED specifically engineered a soft landing while they could have taken a far more hawkish approach and slammed the brakes on, but intentionally chose not to. How many were arguing for the Fed to pull the plaster off but Powel stood his ground and did in fact generate that soft landing - much credit to the man for that. Something I'd actually like Moz's opinion on because, unlike you, he actually understands economics and is able to provide valuable insights.
PS Trad, nice cartoon. Apologies, I don't have pictures to explain all of this to you.
Oh, you mean like economists at the IMF that rated the war'a impact on inflation as modest while placing the majority of the responsibility on monetary policy during COVID?
Yes the IMF
Or do you mean the European Parliament that stated that inflation would have risen sharply without the war and that stagflation was always a concern, one that was warned about long before Putin decided to enter Ukraine?
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2023/741487/IPOL_IDA%282023%29741487_EN.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Well their not economists but did you happen to read you own link by any chance
Quote 'The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the related energy crisis have undoubtedly had a significant impact on the euro area economy and inflation.
And no one said inflation wasn't an issue before the Ukraine war.
Perhaps, you're talking about the FED economists who rated that the war increased inflation by no more than 1.3%? They called it noticeable but far from dominant.
Yes that assessment came from people within the FED, but it was an early assessment that evolved over time and never the majority view. The FED has consistently stated the war had a significant impact on inflation.
Or perhaps your talking about economists at the largest hedge funds that placed monetary policy, supply chain disruption and demand rebound as all plying a larger role in inflation than the Ukraine war?
There is thousands of economists globally, the over whelming view of which is that the Ukraine war was a significant factor in driving inflation (not the sole cause).
Which is, as I said, is the fakest of fake news.
The indoctrination is strong with this one.
And then we can discuss Powel's soft landing hypothesis. You know, the idea that the inflation caused by COVID monetary policy needed to be managed very carefully(IT WAS THE LARGEST MONEY PRINT IN HISTORY) as bringing it down too quickly would cause a recession. How the FED specifically engineered a soft landing while they could have taken a far more hawkish approach and slammed the brakes on, but intentionally chose not to. How many were arguing for the Fed to pull the plaster off but Powel stood his ground and did in fact generate that soft landing - much credit to the man for that. Something I'd actually like Moz's opinion on because, unlike you, he actually understands economics and is able to provide valuable insights.
I understand reality and can see through political biases. When your done consulting him...come join us out in reality...it's actually more interesting and the world makes a lot more sense.
TLDR My guy thinks that the printing of $6t and the rocket ship of inflation it caused was gonna be stopped by the Russia Ukraine war starting. I do remember reporting at the time, from the US, where lefty channels were placing the majority of the blame for inflation on the war. Having been closely following the FED meetings and rate decisions for the year prior...I found that reporting hilariously clear bullshit. So did everybody else.
I guess, the fact the war didn't stop inflation thus means that the war must have contributed significantly regardless of the upward momentum inflation already had going for it due to defined and accepted factors mentioned previously. How does one make an argument like that with a straight face and expect anyone to take you seriously!?
Perhaps the problem is that I am considering the US and global inflation as opposed to Europe alone.
Obviously the war contributed more to inflation in Europe than everywhere else...did you think that was some kind of news to me?