Posts by Nancy Gomez26

wearytrucker22 said:The solution is simple: stop buying gas and all that other overpriced, unnecessary junk.
I couldn't care less about the price of gas, diamonds, uranium, electricity, or any of it.

Natural gas prices have a direct impact on urea costs, and urea costs dictate grain prices—which eventually land on the grocery store shelves as food prices. Everything is interconnected, woven together in a complex web; this is merely one illustration of how these dependencies function.
When grain supply outpaces demand, buyback prices drop—everyone is just calculating the cost of capital and storage until next season when shortages might hit. However, when supply falls short of demand, prices climb much faster and much higher.

wearytrucker22 said:Once Europe says "enough," the oil stops flowing too—and frankly, that’s an even easier lever to pull than gas. Just let the Ukrainians drop ten naval mines at 39.00 E 43.00N and let the currents drift them straight toward the tanker anchorages in Novorossiysk. Once those hit, Russian oil exports are dead in the water.

Sabotage like that serves no one's interests. If such an attempt fails, global oil prices would spike instantly, which would inevitably drag gas prices up right along with them.
Russia would inflict the most damage on the global economy if they suddenly cut off both oil and gas supplies—say, right before the winter heating season hits. If they had built a self-sustaining, robust economy, they could easily pull that stunt. But they can't. They are too dependent on exporting energy and importing other goods to afford such a luxury. The developed world keeps them on a leash, buying just enough energy to keep them on the brink, but never allowing total isolation. They leave them just enough oxygen to barely survive. Once everything stabilizes, the West finds it much more beneficial to have Russian oligarchs spending their cash in Western shipyards rather than seeing that money fund education and development in the rural parts of Russia. And from another angle—the direct consequence of this situation in Russia is a massive army of people, drawn specifically from those rural areas, who are ready to answer Moscow's call to participate in some "special military operation" and carry out "denazification."

wearytrucker22 said:Natural gas prices have dropped to $25 per megawatt hour
At $270 per thousand cubic meters? Please. Some uneducated, five-dimensional chess-playing Russian redneck thinks he can actually outmaneuver the rest of Europe.

Europe is the biggest importer of crude oil and gas on the planet, which means they dictate the global flow. When the EU says "jump," everyone else is either jumping or dying trying. It’s always been this way, and honestly, it isn't changing for at least the next hundred years.

It doesn't matter to Russia what the EU is currently paying for gas. They already lost their best customer, and now their gas is just burning off in flares instead of generating actual revenue.

Sam Alvarez4 said:@bluemason3

I'm not suggesting we keep them in the loop, and honestly, that isn't even an option right now. Besides, Turkey has plenty of signed agreements with the European Union across various sectors...

I just happen to be against full membership in the European Union, that's all!

Turkey has nothing to gain from the European Union. It isn't a question of one being "better" than the other. We are looking at two fundamentally different sets of values—essentially, two entirely different worlds. In my view, we ought to remain two distinct spheres, each anchored by its own principles. To force an integration, either Turkey would have to change or the European Union would have to change. If they did, neither would truly be themselves anymore. They would both end up so diluted in the process that the resulting union wouldn't even resemble anything recognizable.

David Jackson2 said:Yeah, it stayed pretty much the same—maybe down by like 0.1% or something. Honestly, the fact that the result was that static makes it feel statistically impossible. Especially since the early returns were coming from those smaller towns in central Anatolia, yet absolutely nothing shifted 🙄

It’s also weird to me that Erdogan didn't even call for a recount when he was that close to hitting 50%. The whole system is just bizarre—you know, how the official outlets don't report directly, but instead, news agencies follow this strange, convoluted process 👎

I'm with you there, though I'd say the European Union is being pretty hypocritical about the whole thing too.

Based on everything observed so far, I suspect the vote counting is firmly under Erdogan's thumb. That second round only happened to maintain the illusion of a fair process. Erdogan is the type of leader who clings to power, much like Harmon, Putin, or Orban. When you are certain you will sweep future elections, you can afford to play a much more aggressive political game.

David Jackson2 said:One funny thing—since data analysis is kind of my bread and butter, if you want to get technical—this third candidate, Ogan, sat at exactly 5.3% for the entire evening. 🙄

The electorate is spread perfectly evenly across every single district... Did that same pattern hold up for the final election tallies? It’s almost as if nobody found the numbers particularly compelling, so they just plucked a figure out of thin air to have something to recite without actually doing the math. I recall certain politicians here claiming you can always 'stretch' the margins by a few percentage points on election night. Honestly, I haven't the slightest clue how one would even attempt such a feat in our system.

goldenorca11 said:The clash between 21st-century modernism and long-standing tradition is still playing out on a global scale. Here in the States, you can really see it in the friction between the growing LGBT movement and the predominantly Protestant population. Honestly, the divide among believers is incredibly sharp right now!

It feels like Catholicism is losing its grip across Europe, slowly morphing from within into something that looks more and more like a brand-new version of Protestantism.

Islam holds an incredibly powerful grip on Asia right now, and we’re seeing a real shift toward fundamentalism, similar to the rise of ISIS.

It feels like history is repeating itself right before our eyes. Looking at Russia, they seem to be following the exact same trajectory that the old Soviet era took after its collapse—just with about a twenty-five-year delay. If you look back at the early 90s versus what we are seeing now, the patterns are eerily similar, and I suspect the endgame will be much the same. The big picture is becoming quite clear: the US and the European Union have successfully integrated nations like Ukraine into the fold, making them economically stronger than ever. Meanwhile, you have Russia and Mexico facing a future of stagnation at best, or risking total fragmentation at worst. In my view, Mexico has essentially already lost Mexico; they just haven't officially signed the paperwork yet. As for Russia, they are staring down the barrel of losing much more than just this conflict in Ukraine. Time will tell exactly how much they have left to lose.

Amanda Allen4 isn't exactly known for being crystal clear in her posts, but I have to say, this one isn't nearly as cryptic as usual!

Two sides to every story:
The alliance of democratic nations—which, by the way, Saudi Arabia has managed to sneak its way into!
A real clique of autocrats.

What really gets me thinking is that list of countries forming the autocratic camp. I keep wondering about the ones that aren't officially on any list at all. Could it be somewhere like India?

Sanctions—or more accurately, the global economy—really play a massive role here. If the world hadn't become so interconnected, some aggressors would have gone to war with all their neighbors a long time ago. They simply can't afford to let trade suffer because of a conflict. It’s a tough spot for them; they want to take over Taiwan, but they don't want to leave it in ruins. They aren't looking for a wasteland—they want that thriving economy, but the economy isn't exactly willing to hand itself over to them! 😁
If China hadn't pivoted from Mao's old-school communist mess into its current state, Taiwan would have been swallowed up by China a long time ago.

I honestly hope Noah Diaz and a few of those other Putin's friends around here don't live long enough to see the truth! They’re out here acting like #sanctionsDontWork and claiming things like "the ruble is stronger than ever," and so on and so forth. It's just wild. 🤣

Under Mao's regime, the Chinese simply lacked the technological teeth to touch Taiwan. Once they achieved modernization, they became deeply entwined with the West; disrupting that relationship would be economic suicide. The current issue is Xi. As a leader, he’s reintroducing absolute autocracy on a massive scale—even more aggressively than those before him—effectively stalling the nation's social progress despite having the capacity to do otherwise.
Taiwan isn't going to be handed over on a silver platter. Everyone saw how quickly the "one country, two systems" promise evaporated when the British left Hong Kong. And in that case, they didn't even have to make promises to begin with.

analogbear5 said:I'm not even getting into whether the investment makes sense—that's beside the point. The real issue is looking at the numbers putting massive pressure on their budget. Which means—and I'll say this again—they aren't cutting production to help out the Russians like the post I'm replying to suggests; they're doing it for their own sake.

Not sure where you got the idea that the Saudis are buying up U.S. Treasuries when they’ve actually been selling them more than buying them lately. Just for context, Ireland holds about 2.5 times more U.S. Treasuries in its fund than Saudi Arabia does.

And how exactly is the European Union supposed to "wake up"?

Moves like these are always made for one's own sake, never for anyone else's. It’s simply a question of where the self-interest lies. If Saudi Arabia is seriously reconsidering its strategic partnership with the USA—which seems entirely plausible at this stage—then the US is finally facing the consequences of its past obsession with finding weapons of mass destruction and toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I expect some domestic upheaval within Saudi Arabia soon that will shake up the status quo. Perhaps an assassination, an act of sabotage, or a sudden minor skirmish with Iran. Some kind of escalation designed to force a policy shift. Saudi Arabia isn't exactly known for being a rock-solid monarchy, and the rules regarding succession remain incredibly murky.

Linda Adams said:Arabs from the Middle East and the work🤦

The Saudi are trying to destroy "the West" while simultaneously building these massive, megalomaniac cities that rely entirely on the very Western tourists they despise. If the West collapses, who's going to visit these ghost towns?😁

If the West fails, the Saudis lose everything regarding their investments in bonds denominated in Western currencies—the very surpluses they’ve scraped together from oil sales. If they finish these massive projects, all they will have left are empty skyscrapers, perhaps filled with travelers from elsewhere, maybe from the East. I don't see tourism becoming a cornerstone of the economy in KSA unless there is a fundamental shift, which, realistically speaking, seems highly unlikely. They remain a largely insular society; there are internal forces working hard to ensure it stays that way. Introducing true freedoms would fundamentally alter the nation's character, something the leadership simply cannot tolerate. MBS is reminiscent of Gorbachev; he wants to modernize the state without actually changing the underlying system... but reality doesn't work that way. Once the pressure becomes too great, the reforms will grind to a halt.

analogbear5 said:Saudi Vision 2030.

It appears they intend to reinvest their oil revenues domestically rather than dumping it all into US Treasuries. In theory, that isn't necessarily a bad move. However, I see an excessive obsession with pouring money into concrete and infrastructure projects, while the actual investment in manufacturing seems disproportionately thin.

analogbear5 said:The Saudis are basically just trying to bail themselves out because that utopian megaproject they dreamed up isn't exactly cheap.

Which project specifically are we discussing?

Anthony Jones15 said:The mass exodus of major global corporations from Russia continues:

Last year, I honestly thought we were looking at a return to the 1950s. Now? It’s starting to look more like a slide back into the 19th century.
I caught a report yesterday suggesting they might go as far as banning YouTube entirely in Russia, followed closely by a total ban on VPNs. If that happens, they aren't just cutting off the internet; they're effectively dragging themselves back into the Stone Age. 👍

It seems a bit late in the game for that regime to attempt a total decoupling of their internet from the rest of the world. From a technical standpoint, that's ancient history. Even if they cut the physical lines, people will just pivot to Starlink. Honestly, staying connected via traditional wired infrastructure actually serves their interests better—it gives them a semblance of oversight and control over communications. Once everyone migrates to Starlink or some future satellite provider, that control evaporates completely. But then again, given everything we've witnessed so far, they might just try anyway.

Noah Martin2 said:If my memory serves me right, didn't he mention a few years back that he received some "first Miami cockade" award? He shouldn't get confused with PSK—being first isn't the same as being the only one. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see people calling back to Stalin and his ways.

Now, this is entirely beyond my expertise and knowledge... what on earth is a 'Miami cockade'? I've heard of the Miami Bishops, but a cockade...????

brightheron64 said:The phenomenon of flagellants bowing down to a "Great Leader" has existed since the dawn of time and, frankly, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. 🕺

That role is reserved for those who actually possess the drive to move forward—though, realistically, most lack any capacity beyond the ability to crawl through dark, narrow tunnels. To be fair, one must admit that such a skill requires endurance; you have to be able to withstand the pressure. In the end, the reward always matches the level of effort and intellect applied. Under Joseph Stalin, those specific survival skills were mostly focused on basic biological persistence, but that is a different conversation entirely.

brightheron64 said:If we follow that line of reasoning, they should have tried to assassinate Joseph Stalin at least 334 times.

In the end, they didn't even have the guts to step up when he was suffering a stroke and dying in his own filth...

Stalin's friend was resting, so they didn't want to disturb him.
If they feared him, they certainly did. And once they realized he was dying—they helped him cross over. They knew that by letting him go, they were merely extending their own lifespans. Joseph Stalin was a sick man who devolved into a monster, not a leader. But Stalin belongs to history. The real issue is that today, in the 21st century—after everything we've seen—someone actually dares to invoke Stalin and his methods as some kind of shining example to follow.

Nathan Evans78 said:Look, explain to me how food prices are jumping by 10% to 20% solely because of excessive money printing. Are people suddenly eating two cartons of eggs instead of one just because government subsidies, which were roughly equal to minimum wage, suddenly appeared out of nowhere? That doesn't track.

If you ask me, about 60% of the blame lies with all that cash being pumped into the system during the pandemic and the subsequent destruction of production, while the other 40% comes down to this senseless war and the resulting sanctions.

Tl;dr

If the war hadn't happened, wage growth would have stayed in lockstep with inflation, and we wouldn't be seeing those nasty 5% month-over-month drops.

Food prices began their ascent long before the conflict broke out, though the war and sanctions certainly accelerated the upward trend. Naturally, food costs rise because input costs have been climbing for quite some time. Then, retailers attempted to squeeze farmers to keep prices suppressed—so we simply stopped supplying them. It becomes more profitable to sit idle than to work and accumulate losses simultaneously. Eventually, shelves went empty, and prices spiked beyond all reason. Ultimately, much of this is happening because certain individuals want to play the role of strict regulators over other people's labor and lives, rather than rolling up their sleeves to actually produce goods at the "realistic" prices they imagine should exist. The more they attempt regulation and impose various mandates—like these endless "production standard increases" which carry costs inevitably passed down to the consumer—the higher prices will climb. Or, alternatively, people will simply quit producing altogether (which is what we producers see as the endgame for these imposed policies). In that scenario, I have no idea what the urban populations are going to eat. Essentially, these "regulators" prove themselves to be utterly incompetent. Whether it's regarding the pandemic, agriculture, environmental protection, or anything else—these kids simply haven't a clue.

analogbear5 said:Same deal with Soviet imports and exports—basically nonexistent. Back then, Joseph Stalin was obsessed with autarky. He was terrified that Western capitalists would get a foothold in the Soviet economy.

The Soviet Union was essentially operating under a form of economic isolation back then, a trend set in motion during the revolution. While the Bolsheviks pushed through sweeping nationalization, the real catalyst for their forced isolation from the West was the seizure of oil fields in Azerbaijan near the Caspian Sea. At that time, oil companies held massive sway over their respective governments—and they had assets elsewhere too. They couldn't just sit by and let nationalization happen without hitting back.
Later on, the Bolsheviks tried to frame this isolation as a mere reaction to Western fear of a "successful" new political system, and eventually, the West simply moved on from the episode. Of course, that era of isolation wasn't nearly as effective as what we see today; there was no unified, coordinated effort among all players. Information traveled much slower, and state oversight of corporations was significantly weaker than modern standards. Furthermore, the shift of global dominance from the United Kingdom to the USA was already underway, meaning the major powers weren't acting with a single, unified policy.

brightheron64 said:To cut to the chase, I have just one question:

Is the fighting currently happening in Ukraine or in Russia (if we're looking at internationally recognized borders)?

By the way, even after those successful offensives, people were saying: "Let's talk again in three months."
And where does that leave us now?
A whole new circle of hell is being dug out!

As of right now, the war is in Ukraine—if the fighting spills over into Russian territory, it will be an internal conflict among Russians themselves. I am firmly convinced that Ukrainian military units will not engage in combat on Russian soil. They might direct a drone or a missile strike toward military infrastructure within Russia, but such actions would remain extremely limited in scope.

brightheron64 said:

Bryan Booth82 As if I haven't heard this all before...
When the West starts slapping restrictions on oil sales and all those petroleum-based products, it’s pretty clear that Russia's revenue is going to take a significant hit too...

If global oil prices take a dive, everyone loses—from our friends in the Middle East right down to those massive Norwegian sovereign wealth funds... And honestly, I find it hard to believe that anyone would be willing to foot a much higher bill just to pay double what we’re paying to the Russians, simply out of some sense of moral high ground or altruism...

That’s really all there is to say...
I can't help but worry that this whole situation might drag on much longer than any of us are prepared for. Right now, it feels like we’re just stuck in this endless cycle of trying to outlast one another, seeing who can hold their ground the longest... but at the end of the day, it always seems to settle in the exact same way. Whether you're sitting at the negotiating table or just waiting out the clock in a train car, the result remains unchanged...

Yeah... 🙈

Well, there it is... apparently, they're saying the break-even point is sitting right around $30 a barrel...

I don't deal in oil, and frankly, I probably shouldn't be weighing in on a subject where I lack expertise. But from what I've gathered through various readings, fracking isn't exactly a long-term solution. These types of deposits tend to run dry much faster than initial projections suggest, and the process itself is incredibly expensive compared to traditional drilling where the crude flows naturally. Then there's the environmental toll, which is impossible to quantify accurately—local communities near these sites often find their drinking water supplies rendered useless. It’s a relatively new technology, and clearly, there are still too many unknowns. It might ultimately prove to be more of a hype cycle than a sustainable reality.

brightheron64 said:subtitle : Quote

You really think so?

To be honest, I'm just not sure... I mean, does anyone actually know what a barrel costs straight out of a cracking unit these days?

subtitle : Quote

It "doesn't work"? That's a bit of an oversimplification, don't you think?

The real mess is that this Russia is bleeding cheap oil and gas... while most of the rest of the world acts like a pack of vampires, licking their lips and shouting for more. Those "mysterious tankers" didn't just materialize out of thin air in the Bermuda Triangle.

The heart of the matter is finding that breaking point—that specific threshold where it becomes unprofitable for the Russians to sell their oil at all. But I suspect hitting a "bottomless pit" scenario is going to be incredibly difficult because we have plenty of allies who aren't interested in that outcome. If we set aside the Arabs and just look at the Britons and Norwegians... could you even imagine oil dropping to $20 a barrel? The odds are slim, to say the least...

It reminds me of how Sweden used to maintain its neutrality, yet Hitler was able to build a massive chunk of his war machine using Swedish iron (not to mention the oil, but let's not go there).

You meant this: fracking?