3 ms·

But unlike in the old days, US wins from higher prices. Even consumers wins (because they make more money on average, and their imported goods are cheaper becau

But unlike in the old days, US wins from higher prices. Even consumers wins (because they make more money on average, and their imported goods are cheaper because balance of payments shifts in US favour because of oil exports). Voters are furious because of psychological factor of gas prices (purely psychological, it has nothing to do with economy or people's purchasing power). It bites politician's asses real hard. So, Trump undermined himself by launching that war - but others are fine.

cgio 18d ago
Do they make more money on average? Does any additional income cover the increase in cost of living? Becoming psychologically poor is much harder than becoming psychologically rich. I doubt that balance of payments goes anywhere near your average Joe’s pocket.
- anovikov 18d ago
  It absolutely does because balance of payments = exchange rate, and average Joe is poor and consumes disproportional part of imported goods vs the rich.
  - pjc50 18d ago
    Imported goods which have been made more expensive by tariffs?
  - athrowaway3z 18d ago
    This is just wrong. The overwhelming amount of expenses is for domestic products; lumber, food, services, rent, etc. Cheaper foreign shit isn't going to be meaningfully felt by the majority. The part where the rich come in, is that the rich will disproportionally feel the upside of selling the fuel. The people on below average wage are just going to see prices rise and meager savings dilute, long before their wages grow. Thats not to say the US isn't going to be well of as history's largest energy producer ever, but the reshuffling is going to be extremely painful for a majority of Americans.
- anovikov 17d ago
  I mean, it's rather absurd to claim that "a net exporter country loses out because of increase in price of the commodity in question".
  - cgio 17d ago
    The country not in total, individuals though could overwhelmingly lose.
dakolli 18d ago
[dead]
Urahandystar 18d ago
All of that depends on the strength of the Dollar, If the US is to deindustrialise as it aims too it needs a weak dollar. Secondly theres the Petro-dollar which depends on the Middle East states Reinvesting their profits in the US to keep the dollar strong I don't know if you checked but I don't think they are going to be making any money in the near term. So looks like the dollar will be falling anyway. Further to that there is the global debt system which largely relies on buying US treasuries if countries get squeezed by the coming inflation, theres the chance these get dumped on the market and if that happens I believe the term is "Well, Fuck."
- pjc50 18d ago
  > If the US is to deindustrialise as it aims too it needs a weak dollar. Typo for "reindustrialize"? Is the idea to move people from well paying comfortable services jobs to uncomfortable repetitive lower paid factory work by forcibly lowering their standard of living?
  - Urahandystar 18d ago
    >"Typo for reindustialize" We invented the language first so I'll use it as intended. The plan is for the US to not be dependent on the rest of the world (China) for its needs.
    - kristiandupont 17d ago
      I think GP wasn't pointing out your "s" but rather your "d" at the beginning. At least, I also assumed that you meant "reindustrialise" rather than "deindustrialise".
  - Reubachi 18d ago
    De-industrialize, which should not be a new surprising word, as the appalachian factory belt (now mostly rusted out buildings) has existed for decades. I'm trying to imagine your painted scenario in a positive light ie; "everyone has well paying comfortable service jobs." Do you feel that the rest of the world will just allow itself to become the "butler" of the US, so we can all make $50 usd an hour doing easy jobs? Of course not. As the dollar weakens, and imports rise, we only get skewered more, while our "comfortable service jobs" become worthless.
rcMgD2BwE72F 18d ago
No, because the US are the slowest to electrify their grid and transportation.
wookmaster 18d ago
Can you prove any of that? Most stuff I see online are people complaining how they can't afford anything anymore.
rurp 17d ago
Calling people's anger purely psychological is simply wrong and extremely out of touch. Perhaps you personally are in a privileged position where this is all great, but most people aren't. Most Americans work a regular job and don't have a huge amount of wealth. They make the same amount they did at the beginning of the year, but all of their expenses have increased by a significant amount since then. Maybe down the line they'll be able to enjoy marginally cheaper socks or TVs or whatever, but that does nothing to help them afford higher gas and grocery prices this month.

cgio 18d ago

Do they make more money on average? Does any additional income cover the increase in cost of living? Becoming psychologically poor is much harder than becoming psychologically rich. I doubt that balance of payments goes anywhere near your average Joe’s pocket.

anovikov 18d ago
It absolutely does because balance of payments = exchange rate, and average Joe is poor and consumes disproportional part of imported goods vs the rich.
- pjc50 18d ago
  Imported goods which have been made more expensive by tariffs?
- athrowaway3z 18d ago
  This is just wrong. The overwhelming amount of expenses is for domestic products; lumber, food, services, rent, etc. Cheaper foreign shit isn't going to be meaningfully felt by the majority. The part where the rich come in, is that the rich will disproportionally feel the upside of selling the fuel. The people on below average wage are just going to see prices rise and meager savings dilute, long before their wages grow. Thats not to say the US isn't going to be well of as history's largest energy producer ever, but the reshuffling is going to be extremely painful for a majority of Americans.
anovikov 17d ago
I mean, it's rather absurd to claim that "a net exporter country loses out because of increase in price of the commodity in question".
- cgio 17d ago
  The country not in total, individuals though could overwhelmingly lose.

dakolli 18d ago

[dead]

Urahandystar 18d ago

All of that depends on the strength of the Dollar, If the US is to deindustrialise as it aims too it needs a weak dollar. Secondly theres the Petro-dollar which depends on the Middle East states Reinvesting their profits in the US to keep the dollar strong I don't know if you checked but I don't think they are going to be making any money in the near term. So looks like the dollar will be falling anyway. Further to that there is the global debt system which largely relies on buying US treasuries if countries get squeezed by the coming inflation, theres the chance these get dumped on the market and if that happens I believe the term is "Well, Fuck."

pjc50 18d ago
> If the US is to deindustrialise as it aims too it needs a weak dollar. Typo for "reindustrialize"? Is the idea to move people from well paying comfortable services jobs to uncomfortable repetitive lower paid factory work by forcibly lowering their standard of living?
- Urahandystar 18d ago
  >"Typo for reindustialize" We invented the language first so I'll use it as intended. The plan is for the US to not be dependent on the rest of the world (China) for its needs.
  - kristiandupont 17d ago
    I think GP wasn't pointing out your "s" but rather your "d" at the beginning. At least, I also assumed that you meant "reindustrialise" rather than "deindustrialise".
- Reubachi 18d ago
  De-industrialize, which should not be a new surprising word, as the appalachian factory belt (now mostly rusted out buildings) has existed for decades. I'm trying to imagine your painted scenario in a positive light ie; "everyone has well paying comfortable service jobs." Do you feel that the rest of the world will just allow itself to become the "butler" of the US, so we can all make $50 usd an hour doing easy jobs? Of course not. As the dollar weakens, and imports rise, we only get skewered more, while our "comfortable service jobs" become worthless.

rcMgD2BwE72F 18d ago

No, because the US are the slowest to electrify their grid and transportation.

wookmaster 18d ago

Can you prove any of that? Most stuff I see online are people complaining how they can't afford anything anymore.

rurp 17d ago

Calling people's anger purely psychological is simply wrong and extremely out of touch. Perhaps you personally are in a privileged position where this is all great, but most people aren't. Most Americans work a regular job and don't have a huge amount of wealth. They make the same amount they did at the beginning of the year, but all of their expenses have increased by a significant amount since then. Maybe down the line they'll be able to enjoy marginally cheaper socks or TVs or whatever, but that does nothing to help them afford higher gas and grocery prices this month.