I'm old enough to remember:

when many dummies / communists / Islamists across the country were stating there would be $156 per barrel of oil as a result of us stopping an Iranian nuclear bomb

U.S. oil falls below $90 on report Iran agreement would restore Hormuz traffic in one month

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

There are no easy answers to this mess

---

There are no easy answers to life. And there sure is **** aren't any easy answers to leading the world. It takes strong men.

Strong men like Donald John Trump.

---

Geez......Lord help us!

---

He is. Who do you think turned DJTs head in Butler, PA

---

God wants us to have higher gas prices and stagflation? That seems odd.

---

You think gas prices would be lower had JD Vance been elected president?

---

I think Vance would not have had the cajones to go after Iran like Trump did a few months ago, which has caused prices to go up the way they have.

In that sense, yes, prices would have been lower (stayed, really) than they are today.

I also believe Vance, or anyone really, wouldn't have done the tariffs last year that Trump did, which caused prices on goods to go up.

So, because Vance is a career politician who becomes whatever he needs to do to get/stay elected, prices on everything that has gone up in the past 14 months wouldn't have.

Trump isn't a career politician, and for right/wrong/indifferent reasons, he's doing what he feels is the way he wants things to be.

Hopefully, it'll end up benefiting Americans the way he says it will. If not, well, at least we know what we'll be getting (any politician not named Trump) next time around.

LMCane said:

---

I'm old enough to remember:

when many dummies / communists / Islamists across the country were stating there would be $156 per barrel of oil as a result of us stopping an Iranian nuclear bomb

U.S. oil falls below $90 on report Iran agreement would restore Hormuz traffic in one month

---

A lot of people who follow physical oil flows are still perplexed at the paper markets. If this thing doesn't actually open soon there will be very real physical shortages that will get oil to the 150s or higher almost overnight. The paper markets have been trading on optimism for the last several months. Everything said in the media about a deal being near or something behind the scenes getting done results in a drop but it seems to be just vibes more than anything.

Strategic petroleum drawdowns from storage and increased supply from alternate sources have mitigated much of the hit but we are still drawing down more from storage than we are extra-producing to meet demand. That can only last so long. There's a bare minimum you have to keep running through the pipes to keep the system flowing and storage is drawing down fast. Asia and Europe are nearing the point.

Definitely hoping the strait gets open ASAP.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

LMCane said:

---

I'm old enough to remember:

when many dummies / communists / Islamists across the country were stating there would be $156 per barrel of oil as a result of us stopping an Iranian nuclear bomb

U.S. oil falls below $90 on report Iran agreement would restore Hormuz traffic in one month

---

A lot of people who follow physical oil flows are still perplexed at the paper markets. If this thing doesn't actually open soon there will be very real physical shortages that will get oil to the 150s or higher almost overnight. The paper markets have been trading on optimism for the last several months. Everything said in the media about a deal being near or something behind the scenes getting done results in a drop but it seems to be just vibes more than anything.

Strategic petroleum drawdowns from storage and increased supply from alternate sources have mitigated much of the hit but we are still drawing down more from storage than we are extra-producing to meet demand. That can only last so long. There's a bare minimum you have to keep running through the pipes to keep the system flowing and storage is drawing down fast. Asia and Europe are nearing the point.

Definitely hoping the strait gets open ASAP.

---

I thought summer airplane travel, particularly in Europe, was cancelled about a month ago because of no fuel. That is what all these same sorts have told us.

I haven't seen stories of people stranded all over the place or that the SoH is open. So what happened?

LMCane said:

---

I'm old enough to remember:

when many dummies / communists / Islamists across the country were stating there would be $156 per barrel of oil as a result of us stopping an Iranian nuclear bomb

U.S. oil falls below $90 on report Iran agreement would restore Hormuz traffic in one month

---

Strange flex
It's not obvious that the tight diesel inventory issues are being reflected in WTI. And American refineries are still short on inventories to fill production needs across various industries. WTI and BNO prices are up 50% since March, inflation is rising, and we're facing a higher risk of stagflation.

But I'm happy you won the "Internet Remembers Dumb ****" award today. That's cool

tysker said:

---

LMCane said:

---

I'm old enough to remember:

when many dummies / communists / Islamists across the country were stating there would be $156 per barrel of oil as a result of us stopping an Iranian nuclear bomb

U.S. oil falls below $90 on report Iran agreement would restore Hormuz traffic in one month

---

Strange flex
It's not obvious that the tight diesel inventory issues are being reflected in WTI. And American refineries are still short on inventories to fill production needs across various industries. WTI and BNO prices are up 50% since March, inflation is rising, and we're facing a higher risk of stagflation.

But I'm happy you won the "Internet Remembers Dumb ****" award today. That's cool

---

I'll take bad economic takes for $12 Alex…

I would say let's take a wager on $150 oil, but nobody is predicting that and I won't take advantage of people like that.

Unemployment steady in the mid 4s and still at historic lows. It would need to at least double for there to be hints of stagflation.

We do NOT have slow or no economic growth. It was gaining steam bigly and current pullback is based on temporary factors and not longer term market structures / issues.

Indicating it was a bad decision to take action in Iran and / or it not being wrapped up by June 1st should NOT be attached to the term "stagflation" unless someone is working the fear market.

flown-the-coop said:

---

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

LMCane said:

---

I'm old enough to remember:

when many dummies / communists / Islamists across the country were stating there would be $156 per barrel of oil as a result of us stopping an Iranian nuclear bomb

U.S. oil falls below $90 on report Iran agreement would restore Hormuz traffic in one month

---

A lot of people who follow physical oil flows are still perplexed at the paper markets. If this thing doesn't actually open soon there will be very real physical shortages that will get oil to the 150s or higher almost overnight. The paper markets have been trading on optimism for the last several months. Everything said in the media about a deal being near or something behind the scenes getting done results in a drop but it seems to be just vibes more than anything.

Strategic petroleum drawdowns from storage and increased supply from alternate sources have mitigated much of the hit but we are still drawing down more from storage than we are extra-producing to meet demand. That can only last so long. There's a bare minimum you have to keep running through the pipes to keep the system flowing and storage is drawing down fast. Asia and Europe are nearing the point.

Definitely hoping the strait gets open ASAP.

---

I thought summer airplane travel, particularly in Europe, was cancelled about a month ago because of no fuel. That is what all these same sorts have told us.

I haven't seen stories of people stranded all over the place or that the SoH is open. So what happened?

---

A lot of flights have been cancelled, most of which are intra-european, and flights that weren't cancelled are much more expensive. Can you please cite where you saw people claiming all travel would be shut down or people would be stranded?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cre1r4n5j5wo

100% correct

Trump does what he thinks is in the BEST INTERESTS FOR AMERICA in the long term

Vance would in NO WAY have attacked Iran-

his foreign policy is in the Tucker Qatarlson "do whatever Oman and Qatar tell me to do" camp.

Less Evil Hank Scorpio said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

LMCane said:

---

I'm old enough to remember:

when many dummies / communists / Islamists across the country were stating there would be $156 per barrel of oil as a result of us stopping an Iranian nuclear bomb

U.S. oil falls below $90 on report Iran agreement would restore Hormuz traffic in one month

---

A lot of people who follow physical oil flows are still perplexed at the paper markets. If this thing doesn't actually open soon there will be very real physical shortages that will get oil to the 150s or higher almost overnight. The paper markets have been trading on optimism for the last several months. Everything said in the media about a deal being near or something behind the scenes getting done results in a drop but it seems to be just vibes more than anything.

Strategic petroleum drawdowns from storage and increased supply from alternate sources have mitigated much of the hit but we are still drawing down more from storage than we are extra-producing to meet demand. That can only last so long. There's a bare minimum you have to keep running through the pipes to keep the system flowing and storage is drawing down fast. Asia and Europe are nearing the point.

Definitely hoping the strait gets open ASAP.

---

I thought summer airplane travel, particularly in Europe, was cancelled about a month ago because of no fuel. That is what all these same sorts have told us.

I haven't seen stories of people stranded all over the place or that the SoH is open. So what happened?

---

A lot of flights have been cancelled, most of which are intra-european, and flights that weren't cancelled are much more expensive. Can you please cite where you saw people claiming all travel would be shut down or people would be stranded?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cre1r4n5j5wo

---

I mean it's linked from your own article.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czjw2kz0l22o

And the article about Lufthansa flights cite a business decision on profitability of routes not availability of fuel… just availability of cheaper fuel.

Everyone can appreciate prices are higher. But buying in to the pipes are running dry seems a bit overdone.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Less Evil Hank Scorpio said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

LMCane said:

---

I'm old enough to remember:

when many dummies / communists / Islamists across the country were stating there would be $156 per barrel of oil as a result of us stopping an Iranian nuclear bomb

U.S. oil falls below $90 on report Iran agreement would restore Hormuz traffic in one month

---

A lot of people who follow physical oil flows are still perplexed at the paper markets. If this thing doesn't actually open soon there will be very real physical shortages that will get oil to the 150s or higher almost overnight. The paper markets have been trading on optimism for the last several months. Everything said in the media about a deal being near or something behind the scenes getting done results in a drop but it seems to be just vibes more than anything.

Strategic petroleum drawdowns from storage and increased supply from alternate sources have mitigated much of the hit but we are still drawing down more from storage than we are extra-producing to meet demand. That can only last so long. There's a bare minimum you have to keep running through the pipes to keep the system flowing and storage is drawing down fast. Asia and Europe are nearing the point.

Definitely hoping the strait gets open ASAP.

---

I thought summer airplane travel, particularly in Europe, was cancelled about a month ago because of no fuel. That is what all these same sorts have told us.

I haven't seen stories of people stranded all over the place or that the SoH is open. So what happened?

---

A lot of flights have been cancelled, most of which are intra-european, and flights that weren't cancelled are much more expensive. Can you please cite where you saw people claiming all travel would be shut down or people would be stranded?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cre1r4n5j5wo

---

I mean it's linked from your own article.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czjw2kz0l22o

And the article about Lufthansa flights cite a business decision on profitability of routes not availability of fuel… just availability of cheaper fuel.

Everyone can appreciate prices are higher. But buying in to the pipes are running dry seems a bit overdone.

---

I feel like what that article says is what is playing out. There is an issue with supply, so many flights are getting canceled and those that aren't are more expensive. That is what the article you linked actually says. Maybe you just read the headline?

The whole thing is kind of a silly argument because most of these prognostications are really saying "if nothing changes, XYZ will happen". That is an impossible hypothesis to test because things do change. Airlines change routes, cut flights, change operational strategies to save fuel, US exports go up etc. Nothing happens in a vacuum. If you really think through the implications of what that article is saying, you realize that they're telling you its going to be a little bit chaotic and more expensive. The doom and gloom headline is annoying but the article itself isn't bad.

Article titled "6 weeks of jet fuel left" published… 6 weeks ago.

Has jet fuel run out or not?

And I read it 6 weeks ago and knew it was nonsense then.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Article titled "6 weeks of jet fuel left" published… 6 weeks ago.

Has jet fuel run out or not?

And I read it 6 weeks ago and knew it was nonsense then.

---

Ok, so yes you are just basing it off the headline. Real solid analysis there.

Here are some quotes from the article you linked that show that it is actually a pretty reasonable take with a bad headline:

Quote:

---

Analysing different scenarios, it said that if Europe was unable to replace more than 50% of its Middle Eastern imports, "physical shortages may emerge at select airports, resulting in flight cancellations, and demand destruction".

---

Quote:

---

"It's not a certainty, but still, it's looking more and more likely that there will be a shortage of some extent in some areas of Europe.

---

Quote:

---

Earlier this week, the European Commission said there was "no evidence of fuel shortages" in the European Union, but acknowledged there could be supply issues "in the near future".
A spokesperson told a press briefing crude oil supplies to EU refineries were "stable with no need for additional stock releases at present".

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

T

---

---

---

---

---

---

I also believe Vance, or anyone really, wouldn't have done the tariffs last year that Trump did, which caused prices on goods to go up.

---

Prices of goods went up because we printed a metric-**** ton of money to pay for too much government spending. Tariffs were a distant second to inflation here.

From a few pages ago:

Quote:

---

Sorry I am very intelligent and knowledgeable on a vast array of topics.

Instead of being mad jelly, how about being appreciative that someone brings that knowledge and is willing to discuss on topics to inform a great many who simply have very limited, poor or incomplete understanding of things.'

---

Now:

But but but, the headline

LMCane said:

---

his foreign policy is in the Tucker Qatarlson "do whatever Oman and Qatar tell me to do" camp.

---

Do you have any support whatsoever for this?

Right, so I provided the article where the nonsense originated from, they hedged their article / position past the headline (you understand I did not write the headline - they are the ones who shouted the headline or fear mongering, which is what I was pointed out).

They then throw some caveats in for when their doomsday doesn't play out. 6 weeks later and their article didn't play out. That's not on me, thats on the **** writers at BBC who ALWAYS have an agenda - and it's not a pro-America one.

Less Evil Hank Scorpio said:

---

From a few pages ago:

Quote:

---

Sorry I am very intelligent and knowledgeable on a vast array of topics.

Instead of being mad jelly, how about being appreciative that someone brings that knowledge and is willing to discuss on topics to inform a great many who simply have very limited, poor or incomplete understanding of things.'

---

Now:

But but but, the headline

---

Dumb post is dumb. You asked for support when I said people were clamoring jet fuel was going to run out, I provided an article from your favorite news source saying exactly that.

This is not quite the own you think it is, unless you are going to a huge self-own at this point.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Right, so I provided the article where the nonsense originated from, they hedged their article / position past the headline (you understand I did not write the headline - they are the ones who shouted the headline or fear mongering, which is what I was pointed out).

They then throw some caveats in for when their doomsday doesn't play out. 6 weeks later and their article didn't play out. That's not on me, thats on the **** writers at BBC who ALWAYS have an agenda - and it's not a pro-America one.

---

I don't know for sure when it comes to the BBC, but in general the authors of articles don't write their own headlines. The headline guys are the clickbait farms, and the writers are actually putting nuance. I think it's on the individual to actually read the article and not just assume that the headline is the whole story. It feels like a straw man - you are impeaching the headline when no one was claiming the headline was fact.

Did you happen to pick up the "headline" is based on a direct quote from the head of the International Energy Agency?

It was not some chummy editor doing click bait. The article AND its headline were intended to mislead, spread anti-war sentiment.

BTW - Another no so convenient headline (and article) saying no biggie on jet fuel, this one from 6 days not 6 weeks ago.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgplpd7px4o

Quote:

---

The boss of EasyJet has said the airline will not be affected by jet fuel shortages this summer, but says people are booking flights later because of the uncertainty caused by Iran war.

Kenton Jarvis told the BBC travellers should not panic as the airline had seen no issues with fuel supplies, adding that people could book with confidence.

The conflict in the Middle East has led to the effective blockade of the key Strait of Hormuz waterway, normally a key route for Europe's jet fuel, and this has led to near doubling in fuel prices.

Earlier this week, rival carrier Ryanair said Europe remained "relatively well supplied with jet fuel".

-snip-

Jarvis told the BBC's Today programme: "We've seen absolutely no issues with fuel supply in any of our airports in the UK across Europe or indeed beyond."

He added the carrier stayed in close contact with its fuel suppliers, airports and governments and "they're equally raising no issues looking forward".

"I would absolutely say don't panic about it, at EasyJet we fully intend to fly the summer schedule that we have on sale," he said, adding that the airline would not be adding fuel surcharges to fares.

---

BusterAg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

tysker said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

docb said:

---

T

---

---

---

---

---

---

I also believe Vance, or anyone really, wouldn't have done the tariffs last year that Trump did, which caused prices on goods to go up.

---

Prices of goods went up because we printed a metric-**** ton of money to pay for too much government spending. Tariffs were a distant second to inflation here.

---

So our government was already mucking things up for us and needed no help from a president?

Yeah, that tracks.

flown-the-coop said:

---

tysker said:

---

LMCane said:

---

I'm old enough to remember:

when many dummies / communists / Islamists across the country were stating there would be $156 per barrel of oil as a result of us stopping an Iranian nuclear bomb

U.S. oil falls below $90 on report Iran agreement would restore Hormuz traffic in one month

---

Strange flex
It's not obvious that the tight diesel inventory issues are being reflected in WTI. And American refineries are still short on inventories to fill production needs across various industries. WTI and BNO prices are up 50% since March, inflation is rising, and we're facing a higher risk of stagflation.

But I'm happy you won the "Internet Remembers Dumb ****" award today. That's cool

---

I'll take bad economic takes for $12 Alex…

I would say let's take a wager on $150 oil, but nobody is predicting that and I won't take advantage of people like that.

Unemployment steady in the mid 4s and still at historic lows. It would need to at least double for there to be hints of stagflation.

We do NOT have slow or no economic growth. It was gaining steam bigly and current pullback is based on temporary factors and not longer term market structures / issues.

Indicating it was a bad decision to take action in Iran and / or it not being wrapped up by June 1st should NOT be attached to the term "stagflation" unless someone is working the fear market.

---

You don't read. The marketplace is facing a higher risk of stagflation.
Your claims of 'transitory' structural issues are not being reflected in commodity or bond markets. Rates are indicating higher for longer and weaker demand for Treasuries. Commodities are trending toward higher input costs, tighter supply, lower demand, and less investment.

The market doesn't care about your wishcasting.

Nor does it care for your doomcasting.

literally every day gets the UAE closer to finishing their pipelines to the Shujairah port which avoids the Straits of Hormuz

every day brings in more Venezuelan petroleum

every day the USA has ports open for tankers to get our fuel

LMAO

you are literally referencing "the market" which is AT ALL TIME HIGHS

while chiding someone else for wishcasting.

you can't make this up!!

No, they quite literally have to make **** up. Then get hurt in the hind when hit with facts.

LMCane said:

---

LMAO

you are literally referencing "the market" which is AT ALL TIME HIGHS

while chiding someone else for wishcasting.

you can't make this up!!

---

Also at or near all-time high prices of Gold, Silver, Platinum, Copper, Lithium, Beef, Coffee. Also, all-time highs in credit card debt and auto loans. HELOCs and student loan debt is quietly increasing
Homes are more expensive than ever, and mortgage rates are climbing.

So cool, your 401(k) is higher because the stock market flows are funneling money into the same 50-100 stocks as everyone else. The bond market and commodity markets are also pricing in a higher risk of stagflation. Both things can be true

LMCane said:

---

literally every day gets the UAE closer to finishing their pipelines to the Shujairah port which avoids the Straits of Hormuz

every day brings in more Venezuelan petroleum

every day the USA has ports open for tankers to get our fuel

---

Can't wait for "every day gas prices keep going down."

flown-the-coop said:

---

No, they quite literally have to make **** up. Then get hurt in the hind when hit with facts.

---

Are you claiming I am making things up?
If I were, it should be easy to disprove what I am saying. Feel free to put forth any evidence to the contrary.

No Spin Ag said:

---

LMCane said:

---

literally every day gets the UAE closer to finishing their pipelines to the Shujairah port which avoids the Straits of Hormuz

every day brings in more Venezuelan petroleum

every day the USA has ports open for tankers to get our fuel

---

Can't wait for "every day gas prices keep going down."

---

They are down. Albeit by $0.01 but that's still down.

They remain below peak Biden particularly when adjusted for Bidenflation.

tysker said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

No, they quite literally have to make **** up. Then get hurt in the hind when hit with facts.

---

Are you claiming I am making things up?
If I were, it should be easy to disprove what I am saying. Feel free to put forth any evidence to the contrary.

---

Mortgage rates are lower than a year ago and only ticked up just a bit and are expected to remain flat, but likely lower as Warsh takes over.

Stock market is higher because of confidence in economic growth not just because certain people are buying certain stocks.

You also indicated company investments are down but that would be inconsistent with the above. Bessent says 10% growth in investments and >17% in capex investments, driven by tariffs and OBBB.

You may join the guys doomcasting stagflation, but we all don't have to buy in to worst case scenarios when there are plenty of indicators it just isn't so.

Bessent just now talking about drug / pharma prices "plummeting. Natural gas coming down, we are selling more energy to external parties than ever before.

Quote:

---

Stock market is higher because of confidence in economic growth

---

Evidence please.

LMCane said:

---

100% correct

Trump does what he thinks is in the BEST INTERESTS FOR AMERICA in the long term

Vance would in NO WAY have attacked Iran-

his foreign policy is in the Tucker Qatarlson "do whatever Oman and Qatar tell me to do" camp.

---

Trump does what Addleson tells him to do. The best interest for America was never attacking Iran. Double the price of gas is never what is good for the majority of Americans.

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Stock market is higher because of confidence in economic growth

---

Evidence please.

---

You want me to explain the stock market to you?

You invest in companies you believe will continue to deliver and grow. I am not sure the concept of buying high to sell low is a sound one. Maybe you have a different perspective on that.

Haleyscomet50 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

100% correct

Trump does what he thinks is in the BEST INTERESTS FOR AMERICA in the long term

Vance would in NO WAY have attacked Iran-

his foreign policy is in the Tucker Qatarlson "do whatever Oman and Qatar tell me to do" camp.

---

Trump does what Addleson tells him to do. The best interest for America was never attacking Iran. Double the price of gas is never what is good for the majority of Americans.

---

Double?

And now Trump listens to a Palestinian (thanks Massie for recognizing she is not a real Jew).

Perhaps you yearn for the below. Most do not.

flown-the-coop said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Stock market is higher because of confidence in economic growth

---

Evidence please.

---

You want me to explain the stock market to you?

You invest in companies you believe will continue to deliver and grow. I am not sure the concept of buying high to sell low is a sound one. Maybe you have a different perspective on that.

---

>50% of stock market flows are passive, that's not 'investing in companies to deliver and grow.' And about 40% is active ETFs and algos trading with themselves - that's also not 'investing in companies you believe will continue to deliver and grow.'

The stock market thread on the B&I board doesn't have time to educate you on flows, momentum, and leveraged ETFs, but appreciate that the way you want to characterize the stock market hasn't been accurate for about 20 years.