_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
URI Goldman Sachs now reckons that oil could take out the 2008 record of $147
mandeepj wrote 10 min ago:
I donât estimates of these investments firms seriously! They talk
like todayâs scenarios will stay put forever - whether good or bad.
mo7061 wrote 1 hour 3 min ago:
There is one thing to say here, USA wants the price to be high so it
can throttle china.
smt88 wrote 12 min ago:
China is rapidly electrifying and gets a lot of energy from non-US
coal. China also sells renewables to other countries.
The US will be harmed far more than China by consistently high oil
prices.
bediger4000 wrote 1 hour 1 min ago:
Trump started the Iran war, apparently on a whim. There's no 4D chess
going on here.
mhh__ wrote 16 min ago:
Surely started because of Israel. Maybe there was more back and
forth but it really seems like the clique around trump are
specifically in Bibi's pocket
vscode-rest wrote 32 min ago:
The folks controlling Trump are far more adept plotters and
schemers than you give them credit for.
wat10000 wrote 5 min ago:
Can you point to any good plots or schemes theyâve pulled off
in the past? Weâre starting our sixth year with this guy at the
helm and so far itâs nothing but a cavalcade of stupid.
atoav wrote 6 min ago:
[delayed]
roenxi wrote 38 min ago:
It is notable that the worlds major available oil reserves are
now[0] in Venezuela, Canada, the US and Russia. Democracies are
capable of playing 4D chess even if none of the people involved are
up to the challenge. There are a lot of power centres that could
stop Trump if they saw it as a problem for their interests; like
Congress, some people in the administration or even a few people in
CENTCOM (although they'd be more delaying the inevitable).
That being said, unleashing this blow on Asia is insanely risky
whether it is intentional or no. The Trump administration has a
well-earned reputation for not being direct in their warmaking and
the Asian's might decide not to go down without a fight. And the US
is likely to get nothing but ill-will from the continent for the
next generation. And I doubt Trump will politically survive the
blows the US economy will take in the process of shredding the
global oil market.
[0]
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_...
ajross wrote 51 min ago:
High oil prices hurt the US economy much more than China anyway.
We're vastly more dependent on shipping and transport and even more
vastly less elastic with our fuel demand. The only US interests
who would want this are domestic oil producers, who are a small
fraction even of the Republican funding base.
JumpCrisscross wrote 1 hour 39 min ago:
$147 in July 2008 had the purchasing power of ~$218 today [1]
URI [1]: https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
master_crab wrote 13 min ago:
Also adding: the spike in 2008 was transient and partially juiced by
a weak dollar. Unfortunately, we will probably get no respite this
time around.
At the current geopolitical trajectory, I also doubt $147 is anywhere
near the limit of where oil is going.
missedthecue wrote 39 min ago:
in retrospect, the american obsession and mental sensitivity to gas
prices is very curious. The average national gas price in 2008 was
about $3.50 which is almost what it is now in 2026. And being a
commodity product sold per gallon, there's obviously no shrinkflation
or enshittification going on. It's actually remarkably stable in the
face of almost 20 years of steady broader inflation.
JumpCrisscross wrote 25 min ago:
> the american obsession and mental sensitivity to gas prices is
very curious
It strikes me as sensible. DRAM being cheaper over decades
doesnât negate the impact of recent price hikes.
missedthecue wrote 19 min ago:
Well it's not just recent price increases. Any time gasoline goes
above $4, congress is at risk of being flipped (completely
independent of the current party in control).
selectodude wrote 1 hour 17 min ago:
Goldman Sachs has been sandbagging their crude forecasts so
hilariously that I'm convinced they're frontrunning their customers.
seydor wrote 1 hour 54 min ago:
Iran is doing this without a navy
joe_mamba wrote 1 hour 9 min ago:
I like how Pete Hegseth was gloating how the world's most powerful
military managed to sink Iran's navy's shoddy boats sitting in the
harbors, like it was some some crazy achievement.
testing22321 wrote 54 min ago:
Or the one coming back from manoeuvres that wasnât carrying any
munitions.
War crimes every day.
URI [1]: https://asiatimes.com/2026/03/trump-us-navy-sank-unarmed-i...
levinb wrote 37 min ago:
As someone who disdains hyperbolic, motivated framings of
everything in the news cycle, I normally don't like to use words
like that. But, it was interesting to see the news discuss the
"first time since world war two" component of this event, that by
WWII standards, would have been seen as a cowardly violation of
the rules of war.
The were in allied water, on a regularly scheduled drill,
unarmed.
OutOfHere wrote 26 min ago:
It was the first time for the US since WWII. Other countries
have used them in combat over the years since WWII. He couldn't
even get that right.
JumpCrisscross wrote 1 hour 40 min ago:
> Iran is doing this without a navy
They never needed a navy. And to the degree a navy was helpful, it
was in the form of fast-attack craft. We don't seem to have hit those
much yet [1]
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Islam...
DIR <- back to front page