Posts by Noah Martin2

wearytrucker22 said:US to shut border with Mexico for Americans, US trucks and trailers
https://tvpworld.com/70182809/poland...s-and-trailers

The Russians are claiming this won't touch their freight traffic with the European Union one bit. In fact, they’re arguing it’ll actually bolster the Russian trucking sector and lead to fewer delays at the border. Pure nonsense, obviously.

https://tass.com/economy/1625375

Typical Russians—pure optimism. Hard not to love them, really; that infectious energy is relentless. Now I get why some people here are such Russophiles—they always see the glass as half full.

What's your take, Noah Martin2?

Nathan Evans78 said:I’ve always said that force is the only language they actually understand. While all those bureaucrats are busy debating thousands of new sanctions, drones are already dropping right on top of the elite neighborhoods in Moscow. A wave of reality is finally hitting the folks on this forum who genuinely believed that freezing some yachts in the Mediterranean would be enough to sink the oligarchs. ☕

Man, you're really getting worked up over some ash, aren't you, black guy... Sanctions work for the West—it's good for everyone. Why stir the pot when things are working fine for most? You're just being difficult.

Couldn't find anything to say about Aljehina, I guess? Maybe you were just bored, buddy.

Nancy Gomez26 said: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.

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.

Joshua Myers432 said:It’s like he can't even manage to get the ball over the net. 😁 Let him prove that this economic mess is solely the fault of COVID and has nothing to do with the war or sanctions. It’s obvious that sanctions are hitting the American economy hard—anyone claiming otherwise is either oblivious or intentionally playing dumb. Sure, dodging the fallout from a global conflict is nearly impossible, and there's only so much room to maneuver, but pretending we don't see the connection? That constant cycle of ignorance and recycled lies has basically become the trademark of this forum.

In today’s interconnected world, everything hits everything else. Most people here aren't stupid enough to miss that—though while those factors do play a role, they seem to be a much smaller part of the equation compared to the inflation spiral triggered by the COVID crisis response.
You’d have to be particularly dense to think an economy the size of Russia's could dictate terms to the US, especially since—aside from energy, which was already priced high before the war—they don't produce much else. Well, maybe I'm exaggerating slightly—they do export plenty of agricultural goods to third countries because they're self-sufficient. I remember you being one of those voices preaching about Russian self-reliance and how they achieved it back in 2014. I haven't forgotten—nor have I forgotten the predictions that we'd all starve together, yet somehow agricultural quotas in the West still exist. If things actually fall apart, those will be the first things cut.
I get that the argument—that America essentially sanctioned itself—is one of Russia's strongest points. What I don't get is how you plan to justify it when the only thing Tankštel states export are commodities at pre-war prices.
Besides, why the hell would they need to justify anything to us? But hey, you're the genius here—what's your take? We're clearly so vital to them that they'd surely drop everything just for our sake, even though it serves everyone, including the Russians.
If I had to speak off the cuff—sure, maybe some zombie-like Kremlin sympathizers are annoying, but let them prove their supposed inefficiency... as for the rest of us? We couldn't care less.
Drop the sanctions talk and write about the weather instead.

Noah Diaz said:On top of that—and this is clearly by design—they disrupt energy supplies and goods movement while simultaneously ramping up the frantic printing of dollars. It’s basically a desperate attempt to patch holes on a sinking ship.

It feels like the idiots in power are just throwing gasoline on a fire. It’s high time we stop them or vote them out. Do whatever you want, but I've seen enough.

We are watching a catastrophe unfold in slow motion, and it all traces back to Year zero (2020).

What, are we going to ask some big-shot consultant for advice? Or should we follow the logic of leaning into Putin—as if he somehow single-handedly fixed everything? Please. A few bureaucrats running things and they think they've got it all figured out.

Joshua Myers432 said:Half of your questions don't have an answer because economics isn't an exact science (despite what some people claim), and the other half feels like you're just flailing, trying to prove that sanctions actually matter and haven't had any impact on the chaos we've seen over the last few weeks. You aren't entirely wrong, though; Ukraine is still standing, so you could argue that the sanctions have at least some level of utility.

What do you mean they don't make sense? The whole point of sanctions is to target Russia—otherwise, why would everyone be whining so loudly about getting them lifted?
Did you even bother reading my previous post?

hollowdriver13 said:Nah, you got me wrong there. It doesn't mean I was out there partying during the lockdowns or anything, I just did my best to roll with whatever was happening at the time.

Anyway, since we’re drifting away from the main topic—let's talk inflation, money printing, those rock-bottom interest rates, and how much of this mess is due to war versus everything else? We could even bring in Alessio Rastati, since he loves playing economist and dropping theories without much actual substance behind them.

So, how much of this inflation was actually caused by monetary expansion and low interest rates, and how much can we really pin on the war?
Also, if inflation is such a bad thing, why is everyone so terrified of deflation hitting the economy? At what point does "normal" annual inflation cross the line into runaway hyperinflation?
Basically, what's the real difference between "good" and "bad" inflation, and what's driving the climb more: the endless money printing or the conflict abroad? And what kind of ratio are we looking at?

Thanks in advance!

You have a point, though I suspect you aren't grasping the core issue I was addressing—I didn't use that terminology without reason. For years, certain groups have been fed narratives like mindless lizards, spoon-fed whatever information they could stomach, given the counter-arguments, and voilà... you end up with people who can't process even the simplest logic. It's a dead end—a wall.
A lesson for the rest: if you overindulge in brain rot, the risk of permanent neural damage leads inevitably to stupidity. Don't expose yourselves to Russian propaganda, anti-vax rhetoric, lizard people, flat-earthers, or any other way of recruiting the alienated and the desperate; it just leads to further decay of whatever brain cells you have left.

Nathan Evans78 said:We’re all just sitting here waiting for those massive collapses everyone keeps promising—you know, those "it's happening any second now" predictions—mostly because we're all just completely exhausted by this inflation.

You have to be pretty dense to actually believe the war in Ukraine is what's driving inflation—it’s just not that simple, I guess.

Morgan Wright5 said:Well, since most people here seem to view the conditions under which cobalt is mined in the Congo as a very low priority while they're busy scrolling on their phones, I imagine the situation in Ukraine holds a similarly low priority for the average Indian. It's a rather sad reality, I suppose, but that seems to be how it is.

Look, we're all humans—we have our limits. Maybe I would care more about Ukraine if certain idiots hadn't been running hybrid operations against us and our neighbors for the last 15 years. But then you get hit with the "but" and suddenly everything we stood for is tossed out the window... just leave me alone, honestly.

brightheron64 said:To be perfectly honest, I am actually quite relieved that I was wrong and my predictions missed the mark, because I’d much rather be one of those people who sees the glass as half full rather than half empty... 🕺

But hey, if it makes you feel better to think you were right all along and everything is unfolding exactly as you foresaw, then by all means, enjoy it... ☕

It'll work out; there's always time to learn once you grow up.
In the future, if you want to give a complete impression—after they've spent months making it clear you were full of it, and after you've admitted it yourself—just drop the irony at the end. What's the point of using it? You're supposedly neutral and objective, aren't you?

Nathan Evans78 said:

"They’re installing barbed wire fences, deploying drones, and setting up surveillance cameras. Europe is being fortified."

The narrative I keep hearing is that Russia is going to be completely leveled—economically decimated, stripped of their oil, buses stalling out because of sanctions, gas exports drying up, a massive brain drain, an aging population left behind, just a collection of failing states everywhere, and potential debt defaults. It's supposed to be total chaos, absolute lockdowns on everything... yet, somehow, they’re still busy building fences.

Is there something our leaders in the EU aren't telling us about future migration plans, or did someone just grease some palms to secure a massive government contract for fencing? Honestly, if Russians and Belarusians actually intended to stage a mass exodus, it wouldn't happen this way. For heaven's sake, migrants aren't just mindless kids wandering aimlessly; they have access to information and know exactly how to navigate the system. ☕

Lojza, damn it, I called you to explain the nonsense hollowdriver13 is posting and maybe give him a bit of a hard time, but now you're stuck cleaning up after this idiot. It's not right.

Interesting—the once most active thread on this forum has gone quiet... What happened?
I get that Westerners generally know what they're doing—they aren't quite the idiots Easterners make them out to be—but I just don't get our own users here. Everyone seems to have a hundred different arguments, yet suddenly, it's like nobody has anything left to say. Even if it's just some intense coping, please—don't let the thread die; there’s still plenty of value to be found here.

analogbear5 said:Since when does Russia have trade agreements with anyone outside the former USSR?

Didn't they just sign some sort of deal with Mexicans recently?

Maybe we should pass some of these smaller groups into the EU—while just leaving the Russians and Chechens out in the cold.

Sent from my M2007J17G using Reddit

I honestly didn't expect Putin to be this calculated—sending hundreds of thousands of untrained, ill-equipped soldiers straight into the meat grinder just to overwhelm Ukrainian logistics. It’s a "soft target" tactic this time, which feels pretty cowardly, I guess. He knows they'll likely surrender en masse, creating a massive headache for the Ukrainians who then have to figure out how to house and feed them all.

urbanotter said:I don't want to derail the conversation since we're drifting off-topic, but I have to wonder if this counts as "Russian propaganda" too.

Keep in mind that nearly 50% of TSMC's production is physically located in China.

https://www.racunalo.com/ovo-su-najv...va-na-svijetu/

China settled the Hong Kong issue using the "one country, two systems" model, which is exactly what they intend to apply to Taiwan.

But let's not wish for that, because once that happens, things are going to get incredibly messy.

Everything feels like Russian propaganda to me when it sounds like I'm reading some low-rent tabloid. People can obsess over my posts all they want; I guess they just find it entertaining.
I didn't even write much, yet you're still attacking me with these made-up arguments.
The link you sent is 👍, which isn't relevant to anything except proving what any grandma already knows.
Maybe you should just flip your position so we can team up like a bunch of amateur day traders—you could play the Bear shouting "sell, sell, sell" at us, while I play the Bull, yelling "buy, buy, buy" against the crowd... actually, I think I'll stick to my guns.

Sent from my M2007J17G using Reddit

urbanotter said:And you're just out here spinning fairy tales, too.

I honestly don't think ExxonMobil ever had any intention of actually turning off the valves or using gas supplies as a way to hold Europe hostage. If anything, the reality was quite the opposite; they were pouring massive amounts of capital into building out Nord Stream 2, a project that was designed to fully secure a steady flow of gas for decades to come.
If Europe actually had a steady, reliable flow of natural gas, market prices wouldn't have any real reason to spike like they have been. The whole issue is that demand isn't necessarily skyrocketing because people need more energy than ever before; it's just that we aren't getting enough from our existing sources to meet what we already use. I remember sitting around my kitchen table a few years ago, watching the news during a different energy crunch, and thinking how much simpler things would be if we just had the supply lines working the way they were designed to. If the supply was consistent and sufficient, there wouldn't be this artificial pressure driving everything up. It really comes down to simple availability rather than an actual surge in consumption.
Look, even though that pipeline is essentially finished and sitting there at 80% capacity, it’s just staying dormant because of a political decision. It feels like this was driven largely by pressure from the US, which basically sold Europe on this whole narrative about being dangerously over-reliant on Russian gas. In reality, they aren't turning it on because if they did, it would completely undermine the need for all those other gas supply routes we've been working to establish.
The whole conversation surrounding "green energy" and the push to swap out natural gas for alternative power sources feels like it’s perpetually stuck in the planning stages. It isn't just a matter of flipping a switch; transitioning our entire infrastructure requires an astronomical amount of capital and decades of dedicated development to ensure these new sources can actually meet our massive energy demands. I remember sitting through a town hall meeting back in my hometown in Ohio a few years ago where they discussed similar shifts, and the sheer scale of the logistical nightmare became very clear. Beyond the cost, we have to face the reality that in several current industrial technologies, natural gas remains absolutely indispensable. We can't just wish away a resource that serves as the backbone for so much of our modern production.
I've been sitting here wondering about the actual mechanics of how we transition to a green grid while keeping our food supply secure. It really makes me think about the logistical leap we’re trying to make. Specifically, I'm curious about how we intend to produce synthetic fertilizers using only solar and wind power. We know that modern agriculture relies heavily on those fertilizers to maintain high yields and keep grocery prices from spiraling out of control for the average family. If we move away from traditional energy sources, how exactly do we scale up the production of these essential nutrients through renewables? It feels like a massive technical puzzle that we haven't quite solved yet if we want to ensure food remains both abundant and affordable.
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about our energy landscape lately, and honestly, it feels like we're facing an uphill battle that won't be solved by trendy tech alone. When you look at the reality of the situation, the United States—much like much of Europe—is fundamentally short on the raw materials and energy density required to sustain a massive industrial economy. We are essentially tethered to global imports, and that dependency isn't something that just disappears overnight. I remember reading an analysis a few years back about how supply chains can shift almost instantly, leaving entire regions vulnerable, and it really stuck with me. While everyone loves talking about the potential of solar panels and wind turbines, I find myself feeling a bit skeptical about the idea that they can carry the entire load. No matter how much we invest in renewables, we can't simply wish away our need for consistent, high-output power sources. Without addressing the fundamental lack of domestic resources, we'll always be reliant on someone else's terms, and all the wind farms in the world might not be enough to break that cycle.
We’re certainly moving away from that heavy reliance on Russian gas, which feels like a necessary step, but I can't help but feel we're just trading one problem for another. The reality is that we're shifting our dependency toward Liquefied Natural Gas, yet we simply don't have the infrastructure in place to handle it. We lack the necessary capacity for both the liquefaction process and the massive scale of transport required to make this work reliably. It's one of those situations where the solution looks great on paper, but when you look at the actual logistics, it feels like we might be heading straight into another kind of energy bottleneck.
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the current shift toward regasified LNG, and honestly, it feels like we might be walking into a bit of a trap. When you look at the math, buying liquefied gas is consistently more expensive than relying on traditional pipeline transport. As we lean more heavily into this pricier fuel, our domestic manufacturers are forced to bake those soaring energy costs directly into the price of everything they produce. It creates this worrying trend where our businesses start losing their edge, becoming increasingly uncompetitive compared to economies that still have access to massive, steady supplies of cheaper gas. It makes me wonder if we're trading long-term industrial stability for short-term energy shifts.
It isn’t just the cost of heating and fuel that's climbing; we’re seeing grocery prices skyrocket too, which honestly hits families much harder on a day-to-day basis. I remember talking to a neighbor last week who was staring at her receipt in total disbelief—it’s one thing to pay more at the pump, but when the basic stuff you need to feed your kids starts costing twice as much, that’s when the real pressure sets in for most Americans.
I’ve noticed that some specific products shot up in price by as much as 100% just on the mere rumor of a shortage, even though we never actually faced a real scarcity. It reminds me of that time back when my local grocery store in Chicago started hiking prices on certain pantry staples just because people were whispering about supply chain hiccups, despite the shelves remaining fully stocked. It feels like we saw these massive price spikes driven entirely by anticipation rather than any actual lack of inventory.
It feels like we’re watching a massive geopolitical pivot happen in real-time. Russia isn't just looking toward the East anymore; they are doubling down on that direction with everything they have. It’s not just about those massive pipeline projects stretching out toward China, either. They are aggressively building up their own LNG regasification capacities to make sure they can ship energy wherever the demand shifts. It’s a calculated, long-term move to reshape their entire economic landscape.
Japan just finalized an agreement to purchase liquefied natural gas from Sakhalin, and at the same time, China is moving full steam ahead with expanding its pipeline network to feed the southern regions. It looks like they are really leaning into making cheaper gas more accessible across the country, which should significantly boost their overall consumption. I remember reading a similar analysis about energy shifts in the Pacific years ago, and seeing how quickly these massive infrastructure projects come together always strikes me as a testament to how much the global energy landscape is shifting right under our feet.
Once the second phase of the Power of Siberia pipeline is finally completed, China will have a much steadier supply of natural gas right at its doorstep. This shift means they won't have to rely nearly as much on importing expensive liquefied natural gas, which is going to give their domestic economy a serious competitive edge on the global stage. I remember reading a few years back about how much energy volatility can cripple manufacturing sectors, and seeing this kind of infrastructure move really makes you realize how much they are positioning themselves for long-term stability.

The tension between China and the US seems to be reaching a boiling point lately, and I can't help but worry about where this is all heading. If things really boil over there, we could see China and Russia pulling even closer together, leaving the West and Europe essentially stranded. It wouldn't just be an energy crisis—though losing access to gas would be devastating enough—it would be a total technological blackout. We are talking about a massive shortage of semiconductors sourced from Taiwan, China, and South Korea. When you consider that roughly 70% of the world's advanced chips come from those specific regions, the realization hits home: without them, the sophisticated tech we rely on every single day simply ceases to exist. It’s a precarious position to be in, and frankly, it feels like we're walking a very thin line.
It all boils down to one thing: ensuring America maintains its global hegemony, where Western corporations hold the ultimate authority and make every critical decision that matters.

Yet, whenever we try to have a serious discussion focused strictly on economic realities, we’re immediately branded as "Russia-lovers"—it's become this convenient little label used to shut down any meaningful debate.

You aren't a "Russophile" just because you stick to economics; they call you that because your stance was decided long ago—you seem determined to push some kind of Russian propaganda regardless of the facts, tailoring your narrative to fit.
I mean, what can one even say when these are your arguments... Intel and Apple are already pouring $12 and $17 billion into new FAB-ov in the USA.
Besides, the tension between Taiwan and China won't be resolved as long as their systems of government remain worlds apart. Why would anyone thriving under capitalism even consider merging with that distorted Chinese system? And in the event of a war, TSMC's expertise wouldn't matter much—that level of precision manufacturing requires total sterility, which isn't something they'll be protecting in a conflict.
When you claim to be talking purely about economics, did you somehow miss or fail to connect these points? Which part do you think is more dangerous?

quietviper0 said:So, if I’m following your logic correctly: you took a percentage of growth or decline that applies specifically to real GDP, applied it to an entirely different metric—nominal GDP—then adjusted it for a specific currency, and now you’re claiming that this specific calculation somehow gives us a completely different eleventh parameter: purchasing power? 🙏

Let me walk through your example...

If we sell 100 barrels of oil at $5 each, we’ll end up having to take out loans just to cover our extraction costs and keep our heads above water... By taking on debt, we reduce available capital, the cost of capital rises, and investments dry up everywhere...
Total output: 100 barrels of oil.

But, if we sell those 100 barrels at $50 each, we have enough for bread, we pay some customs to the state, we don't have to dip into our savings just to survive, and thanks to taxes, we’ve funded the salary of a clerk at the local DMV who also gets to buy bread...
Total output: 100 barrels of oil, two loaves of bread, and a few investments from the rest of the population...

Now, if we sell those 100 barrels at $500 each, besides the bread, we’re buying lamb, we’re buying cars, we’re investing heavily, the government collects massive tax revenue, politicians are busy arguing over budget cuts, and we’ve created ten new jobs for clerks at the DMV...
Total output: 100 barrels of oil, plenty of bread, various investments, some lamb, a new car, a built oil reservoir, and maybe 10 miles of newly paved highway...

Yes, price can influence things (though it doesn't always have to), but the impact is indirect, and price isn't factored into real GDP... And real GDP is the only thing used to compare economic health over time...
It doesn't necessarily have to drive growth because you might not need to invest or indulge in luxury... It also might not work because inflation could simply eat up all your price gains, leaving you right back where you started with just enough for bread, despite selling at 10x the price... Or perhaps the appreciation of your currency will swallow the value of your exported oil, and you'll find you can still only afford bread in your own local currency...

And no, we haven't gained any insight into purchasing power from this... That’s something the experts will measure using entirely different methods...

Anyway, you go ahead and keep playing with your numbers, I won't bother you anymore...

I addressed the actual drop in production—whether caused by their own policy choices or sanctions—based on data available to the public that impacts GDP projections, yet you keep pivoting back to real GDP. We don't have access to their internal metrics because they don't release them. If you were personally sent those figures, feel free to share them with us.
How do you explain the idea that price may or may not affect the GDP of a nation that has tied its entire development solely to hydrocarbon exports?

quietviper0 said:What actually fluctuates is real GDP, not nominal figures, and it shouldn't be calculated using some arbitrary currency you've picked out to make a point... In truth, GDP isn't really about currency at all; it represents the actual volume of goods produced and services rendered, and to compare that over time, we use constant prices.

The thing that fell for the Russians was 4%, and that is the only metric that truly rises or falls—real GDP, specifically products and services.

If they had 1,000 products and services last year, and there is a 4% drop this year, they now have 960, regardless of whatever their nominal value might be...

Let's take a hypothetical scenario from last year to illustrate this:
100 products = 100 rubles = 10 dollars

This year, applying that 4% drop, the only thing we can actually map that decrease onto is the component representing products. That percentage doesn't apply to currencies. However, if you factor in inflation/deflation (the base rate) and depreciation/appreciation (all other currencies), then you can derive the other nominal data points.

In Russia's case, if we account for 15% inflation and a 20% appreciation of the ruble, those top figures would look roughly like this:
96 products = 110 rubles = 13 dollars

Any attempt to manipulate those numbers, other than acknowledging that products and services fell by 4%, is simply incorrect... It is wrong to claim there was a 10% increase in rubles, and it is equally wrong to claim a 30% increase in dollars. Currencies are irrelevant to the core fact.
They fell by 4%. In terms of products and services.
And all these little gymnastics you're doing with exchange rates... well, it's really just economic voodoo...

It is the exact same situation in the US where we just received data showing 7.7% growth.
In terms of local currency adjusted for inflation, it was actually 15%, and in dollars, it was "only" 5% due to depreciation. Using anything other than that 7.7% figure is a mistake because the currency fluctuations are secondary.

P.S. I sincerely hope life never sends me to you for any banking or financial services...

Ever since the conflict broke out, Russia has been cherry-picking its data—releasing what fits their narrative and burying the rest.
Regarding your point about the 1,000 products dropping to 960 in nominal value: watch this. You're citing a 4% real decline in goods and services, but imports make up 20% of their GDP, which has plummeted by 50%. Furthermore, those 1,000 foreign companies that accounted for 40% of their GDP vanished overnight. I don't know how much of that they've managed to replace... maybe some of it, I guess. They mostly buffered the blow through gas prices, because—by their own choice, if I'm reading this right—capacity is at 20%, and it looks like it'll stay within those limits (at least according to Europe).
The moment Europe adjusts to this new gas reality and fuel becomes a standard commodity rather than a strategic lever, Russia will be in a freefall.
You don't need expert analysis; just look at what happened back in 2014 and 2015. If it hadn't been for Putin-esque financial acrobatics regarding payments, I suspect we'd be seeing a similar mess right now.

dustyowl29 said:Someone actually has to stoke the wood stove, but if we’re all stuck at work from 7 to 6, there’s nobody around to get things burning by 6 PM just so the house is warm by 10.
That’s easy for families where Grandma is always home to handle it.

People say assumptions are the root of all problems, and they aren't wrong. I guess it's obvious you haven't actually heated a home with wood—but you might have a point.
It would be more accurate to say this applies to anyone who wants the option but can't afford the luxury of natural gas—ask a former wood burner like me. It has its flaws, sure; it's messy work and gets your hands dirty, but your argument about timing doesn't really hold up. Anyone who has ever done it knows that between active burns, you basically choke the air intake and toss in a couple of logs—so when you walk in from work, there’s always enough ember left to catch. You just add fuel and open the vent. Surprisingly, it doesn't take four hours to heat a room—it's more like fifteen minutes, similar to gas.

Sent from my M2007J17G using Reddit