No different then any other world leader. It is like everybody's first day. We still have people that believe the "Very fine people on both sides" hoax.

Ok...There's some serious mental gymnastics going on here on your part. Feigned outrage? I guess I was pretty spot on with the gaslighting. To answer your first question, a facetious nutjob would say that. He also said TONIGHT a civilization would die. Trump is not sophisticated enough to compare what he's doing to the fall of Rome. The Roman civilization also did not die, it evolved. Listen, I get Trump's 'stupid tweets,' but where is the line drawn? Sometimes I think people just willfully forget the guy making 'empty' genocidal threats holds the codes to the most powerful weapons mankind has ever seen, with the destructive power to end life on Earth. I'm not being overly dramatic saying that.

No mental gymnastics, just facts and reality of which you were unable to refute.

Weak response bro. You know what he said went too far.

Weak response? You didn't refute any one of my points, my response was to YOUR weak response. Plus you still have to prove that President Trump threatened Genocide. The same people and biased organizations who are screaming genocide are the same who screamed genocide in Palestine despite a year over year increase in population. How does that happen if there is genocide? Maybe you guys should stop cheapening the world just like you guys cheapens the word "racism".

Just wow. Minutes of my life I will never get back.

Since you only quoted part of my post I'll take it as capitulation on your part. Also you never addressed (other then some ignorant reference to the Roman Empire which never really refuted my point):

First of all, who threatens "genocide" and ends it with "God Bless the Great People of Iran!" So you think he wants to kill them all? Really?

He also says that "maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?" again showing support to the people, who he supposedly wants to genocide? Give me a break.

The President has made threats to destroy Iranian infrastructure which is what he is alluding to when he says a whole civilization will die. They will be brought back to the stone age, i.e. no power no transportation. Civilizations die all the time in human history without the population itself being eliminated. Think of the Roman and Persian empires.

The targeting of civilian infrastructure to stop military advancement or to pressure a government has been done in nearly every U.S. conflict in its history, most recently Iraq and Afghanistan. Damns, bridges, roads, airports, power plants have all been eliminated in those conflicts. Is today your first day?

But hey, since you guys think he is TACO or whatever then you have nothing to worry about. But that lame talking point fed to you by Democratic operatives goes all out the window when you try to make the argument that Turmp is supposedly some unhinged dictator. Can't have it both ways.

I said a facetious nutjob would say that. Try reading next time. I'm also sorry that I wouldn't get into a dissertation on the Roman Empire. You can go ahead and research that one yourself.

The 'maybe something wonderful can happen' could have very well meant 'maybe they'll capitulate to my demands before I destroy their civilization' also.

LMAO. I don't think research is his strong suit.

Stop straw-manning and try to refute my points. I know it is hard for you. Unless you can then you should stop throwing around the word "genocide". You are doing a severe injustice to those who actually had to suffer through it.

Like I said, baited and gaslighted...and with that I'm done proving that you can't fix stupid. That concludes today's entertainment.

Worked with Nazi Germany.
Worked with Japan (OK, took a couple of nukes too. Hopefully that won’t be necessary.)
pretty sure those are the last two wars anyone has unequivocally won.

"buzz word.... buzz word...... I'm done with you" but really never are

Again, capitulation on your part is well received.

Now we're thinking Iran will surrender because of this blockade? The mullahs couldn't give a rip about the lives of the Iranian people; they've proven that time and time again. All they care about is what any dictatorship cares about, which is staying in power. And they can bear far more pain than we will.

The mullahs aren't going anywhere. Sure, we may have eliminated much of their conventional capabilities, but all you need is one or two mines or drones to take down a tanker and no amount of our naval presence will restart the flow of oil.

Also, it occurred to me that one's position on this whole insanity would depend on whether you actually believe that Iran would launch a nuclear first strike. The mullahs aren't stupid; they haven't controlled a 90-million-person country for 47 years by being stupid. They know that a single nuclear detonation would result in the conversion of their entire country into radioactive dust particles.

All the "Death to America" nonsense is pablum designed to keep their population's anger focused externally. Now, of course, a nuclear Iran would be a fairly awful development, which is why I supported last year's strikes on their enrichment facilities. But our administration has dramatically misjudged how this war would play out, because we fired the intelligent, sane people in the room and brought in TV personalities to run Cabinet departments. (I'm not even talking about Trump).

But the current situation? Let's do a before and after comparison.
Before: Iran didn't control the Strait of Hormuz. Now: they effectively do.

Before: they had an 86 year old leader, with a very shaky regime, and the potential of more moderate successors waiting in the wings. Now: we have a much younger and probably crazier leader, and have refocused many Iranian's anger towards their government, onto us instead. (That happens when you kill enough kids, even though I believe it was an accident -- that's irrelevant).

Before: our Gulf allies had relative stability with very little actual threat from Islamic fundamentalists. Now: the image of peace and prosperity projected by the Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait etc has been shattered. The grand bargains those countries have made with their citizens, while they haven't unraveled yet, are absolutely in danger if this war isn't brought to a swift end.

Before: oil and LNG producing infrastructure in the Persian Gulf hadn't been destroyed since Gulf War 1. Now: not only are energy supplies considerably constrained, the production capabilities have been seriously affected (see; Qatar LNG).

For those who think this will be over quickly and the world will just go back to what it was six weeks ago ... I envy your optimism. I would also encourage you to do some reading on how energy markets actually work, and how and where various fuel types are actually manufactured.

Some of the assumptions I've read from people who think that since the US is allegedly energy independent (spoiler alert: we're not), we shouldn't be affected too much, or that a 20% cut in oil supply should equal only a 20% price increase... It's literally like if a passenger walked into your flight deck and asked if we could take off on one engine, because we would just takeoff half as fast, right? You'd do a facepalm, which is what I do when I read some of the energy-related diatribes on here...

alt=""https://i.postimg.cc/J4VfCSG6/IMG-8007.jpg

alt=""https://i.postimg.cc/Bv4ZZXby/IMG-8008.jpg

The Dow Jones index is literally just 30 American companies. It excludes utilities and transportation, and it is most certainly not representative of the overall US economy. If you only judge world events by whatever number the Dow happens to be at, I don't know what to tell you...

You can takeoff on one max blast engine. It’s even possible using just tiller, rudder & stab trim. If only the gulf was so easy to hat trick. No a blockade won’t work. Goofy to try. Strong post.

Well the assumption Iran’s largest buyer, China at 40%, had not prepared for such a scenario is laughable. They’ve spent the last decade focusing on energy independence by aggressively building oil storage and production capabilities. China “only has three months of oil reserves” is propaganda. Claiming 20% of the world’s oil supply flows through the Strait of Hormuz is technically propaganda—there’s plenty of available untapped supply. Iran was nothing more than sanctioned oil at a steep discount for the Chinese. This idea that the largest consumers of oil have not invested heavily in energy independence by sitting on untapped domestic oil supply is laughable as well.

If you FAILED TO NOTICE the second photo which showed the Index 500 which demonstrates what an index of (duh) FIVE HUNDRED of the most prominent US companies including utilities and transportation and definitely DOES broadly represent the US economy and either didn’t understand that or didn’t notice it, I DO KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU;

For the sake of your significant other and/or kids, let someone else, even if you have to pay a professional financial manager to do it, manage your 401k for you, so they aren’t having to support you in your old age.

a point: the stock market is irrelevant if you’re in the vast majority of Americans with zero equity in it.

but, yes, for people like us with a maxed out 401k every year we generally rise and fall with equities.

correct. Markets rise & fall on earnings. Every time. This is a textbook, epic case study of senior management failure, to recognize and recover from mistakes. One high roller, betting all the chips, no one hard enough to say no. Holy camoley. The madness of king George, pt. II ‘rise & fall of the orange sun’

Repeat after me: the stock market is not the economy. And the economy is not the stock market. It's tempting (and very common) to conflate the two.

Thanks for the tip on financial advisors. I can assure you I'm not worried about my financial well being. Although I will agree with you heartily that 99 pct of people should not be making their own investment decisions. All of our investments outside of our investment real estate portfolio are managed by people who ain't me.

Nor was I necessarily saying it was, although I would challenge that it is “irrelevant”.

alt=""https://i.postimg.cc/dt5zX6Th/IMG-8009.jpg

I simply posted two historical charts that demonstrated the economic impacts of the Iran war - the title of the thread - relative to two indexes that broadly reflect the economic consequences on most of our retirement accounts. Turbosina either couldn’t wait to play ‘gotcha’ to even look at the second photo or did look at it but didn’t understand it and proceeded to lecture me on the failings of the Dow,

But in an era when it has never been easier to actually look up things like participation rates we ought to be careful about throwing around terms like “irrelevant”. Clearly those of us with more disposable income are significantly more invested in the stock market (probably Miata’s too) than those with less disposable income,

I think most of this is absolutely right on. But China has also done a lot more than we have to get itself less dependent on oil. They've heavily subsidized electric, wind, and solar. I was just in PVG a few months back and Guangzhou before that...BYD (colossal Chinese electric car maker) has practically conquered the market with cars that put Teslas to shame. And in the countries where you can buy Chinese EVs, they have absolutely dominated. And they're really well made cars, too. I wish they were just cheap pieces of &&&& so I could feel better about US manufacturing capabilities, but Chinese automakers have advanced in leaps and bounds.

Unlike in the US, the Chinese take a remarkably practical view of energy. They don't code gasoline as "conservative" and electric/ wind/ solar as "liberal" like we do. The last time I checked, energy sources don't have political allegiances, so precisely why we in the US have this distorted view is beyond me.

China has been authorizing construction of 10+ large commercial nuclear reactors for years. Take 5-7 years to build. Unlike the US, they actually build them.

Also heavily invested in renewables.

They're on track to have roughly 2x the available commercial electric power than the US by 2035 or so.

Where cheap power is, manufacturing will follow. "AI" as well, if you buy the hype.

Good point. I forgot nuclear. Another solution that would make us so much less dependent on whatever the latest Gulf conflict du jour is....

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=57280

Georgia just built the first modern nuclear plant in 30 years. It can be done and I hope the government forces these AI companies to build them as a requirement for spamming dystopian data centers everywhere.

If we build them themselves, what can go wrong???

In addition, China has invested heavily in battery technology and renewables to the extent that it is the leading power in these fields:

"Chinese companies dominate not just batteries and grid hardware but also, increasingly, the software that manages energy flows. While some governments may be wary of giving Chinese firms access to their grids via the software, they are likely to keep buying the hardware since they have few affordable alternatives."

While there may be some domestic pain, China may be positioned to benefit from a global oil shock: "Chinese companies dominate the manufacturing of nearly every component of a modern grid, including solar panels, high-voltage cables, transformers and batteries that store energy for later use. Even before the war in Iran, they were expanding abroad, helping countries build grids designed to meet the heavy electricity demands of artificial intelligence."

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/13/b...tery-grid.html

What are you even talking about? This is a laughably irrelevant example.

We did not win WW2 because FDR made threats on twitter. Are you actually being serious?

Oh also -- while the S&P does indeed include 500 companies, fully 35 to 40 percent of the index's entire value is derived from just seven companies.

Seven.

All of them are tech companies and their valuations depend *extremely heavily* on this AI boom, the future of which is anyone's guess.

And yet so many Americans dismiss the Chinese as makers of "useless crap I can buy at Walmart." They surely do make plenty of that sort of stuff, but in recent years they have become much more forward-thinking with their industrial policy than we have.

China has tons of its own economic issues, and they still can't make a decent commercial aircraft... But they're absolutely on a trajectory to overtake us as the world's economic superpower at some point in the next decade.

Meanwhile we spend our time changing Notices to Air Missions back to Notices to Airmen. Yup, we've got our priorities straight...

Excargodog is basically a troll poster at this point, offering completely unserious takes and irrelevant comparisons. He's basically become the new sonicflyer (what happened to that guy?)

A page or two back, he defended Trump's unhinged twitter rantings by claiming that's the same way we won WW2.

The economic analysis of a guy who thinks WW2 was won because FDR threatened the axis powers in the style of Trump should be taken with a grain of salt to say the least

Well unfortunately the link you posted (which I found quite educational) was to the NYT so it will instantly get dismissed as "fake news" by some on this forum 🫪

I think one of the second-level effects of this war, as you point out, is that while this shock will hurt the US less than it would have in the 1970s (both because we produce more oil, and because we have far more efficient planes, cars, etc etc), the oil shock is much worse in Asian and European countries that import most or all of their oil. They are absolutely going to do whatever they can to transition away from oil, and guess who's going to be there to profit from that transition? As you said -- our friends in Beijing.

That's not a bad idea at all. Unfortunately I think that would get labeled as "unnecessary government intervention" by most everyone on the red side of the aisle in Congress.

It is very difficult to contort China’s progress into something apropos here. The regulatory environment existing in the United States is essentially absent there, nor are the administrative hurdles. Unless we take down the guard rails, they are bound to surpass us.

nonsense.speak from your own soapbox

Nuclear energy is the way to go in the U.S. I will not support any "green new deal" in the U.S. until Nuclear is made the priority. Then you can have your windfarmes or whatnot, whatever makes you feel better. Nuclear is the only thing right now in the world that will make a difference.

This attitude right here is why China leads us by leaps and bounds in battery technology and renewables. Diversified energy production is better than putting all your eggs in one basket, but small minds take a political view to what should be a question of physics and logistics.

Nuclear is fine, but the upfront costs make it currently much less viable than solar/wind, even with current battery technology.

When you're more interested in optics and politics than science and physics, you end up abdicating your position as energy superpower. This is why China has surpassed us in this field.

Maybe concern yourself more with wattage than whether something could be called "woke"

My knowledge regarding China is more shaped by my knowledge of USSR/China and Russia/China history and relations.
IOW fragmented.

That said, what you just wrote should have applied to the USSR in her economic competition with the West in general, and the USA in particular.
Other than some specific successes achieved by brute force and the channeling of resources to narrowly focused goals, it was never close. In spite of Russia's enormous natural resources, it still isn't.
Reflect for a while on why that is.

Authoritarian and autocratic China suffers from the same ills, and has the same advantages you mention, as the USSR, todays Russia, and Mao's China.

China's success has occurred more due to joining the world's rules-based order, abandoning ideological litmus tests for ideas and policies, and actively sharing a significant share of the benefits with the people.
Probably the biggest change from orthodox Communist thinking is the encouragement of innovation. Rather than just attempting to copy observed technologies and systems, they actively encourage improvements. In other words, reasonable risk is encouraged while impatient recklessness is discouraged. To an outsider such as myself, they know who they are and where they wish to go.
(something the Bolsheviks destroyed....they shattered old traditions, but failed to provide a replacement to fill the soul. Soviet citizens had taken from them what they were, only to be replaced with slogans. Brezhnev's USSR and Putin's Russia tried to replace 800 years of Russia with deification of WW2, but that still falls short)
By our standards China is authoritarian and repressive. But it seems to allow just enough freedoms and shared benefits to harness the positive aspects of Western capitalism and liberal politics to have transformed itself from Mao's China.

It probably won't last forever. Recession looms if Western economies falter. But for now China seems to doing so well due to innovation, long term planning, and patience.