I believe I already disclosed that in post #35
Feel free to regale us with your hands on experience in the oil industry.
The “great” negotiator
- Thread starter Flatlandcoug
- Start date
Feel free to regale us with your hands on experience in the oil industry.
Well I did read Laura Lunatic and listened to Joe Rogan so that gives me expertise.
WTF are you talking about? I never said anything about 2016. I said prices weren’t below $40 in Trump 1.0. 2017-2020.
PS - the “I’ll take mean tweets and low gas prices” memes were pure BS. Other than the pandemic, fuel prices went up and down like they historically had with some higher than 2021-2024.
PSS - Biden cancelling the Keystone pipeline was a bad move and a great example of how F’d up this country is catering to the extreme right and left.
I can call balls and strikes. It’s too bad more can’t.
Last edited:
Great. Put that on your resume when you apply for a position with an oil & gas producer.
While I admit that I didn't follow this very closely, I agree that cancelling Keystone seemed like a stupid move, catering to the lefty environmentalists. We all know the type. They drive their Prius's and Tesla's down to the river to protest in favor of removing the Snake River dams.
The absurdity of cancelling Keystone is that oil production in North Dakota and Eastern Montana has to still be shipped via rail through some of the most pristine natural habitat along rivers in Montana, N. Idaho, through Spokane and off to ports on the west coast. A derailment along that route or an explosion going through downtown Spokane could be catastrophic. Last year a railcar full of Coors beer went off the track near Thompson Falls. While a tragic loss of beer and a bunch of drunk fishes, it could have been way worse with oil.
Pipeline much safer. See also the safety record of the Trans-Alaska pipeline which has been pretty decent.
You were in the industry, supposedly, and you don’t remember shit about oil prices. Thanks for regaling us with your great knowledge.
Do you really think Keystone would reduce or eliminate the oil transport through the northwest from North Dakota? Would it be routed elsewhere? What would happen with those sources in North Dakota if Keystone was online?
I’m utterly clueless on the subject but guessing we’d still have some rail transport through our area. Will never forget the Mosier derailment of Bakken oil in 2016. Scary stuff. Maybe I’m misremembering but pretty sure I saw tankers in downtown Spokane on the elevated rail lines near The Davenport last time I was there.
I was off by a year. I don't google every comment made - especially one while drinking a cocktail on a Saturday night.
I spent six years in the oil & gas industry until the company was divested. That's your problem if you don't believe it.
And then there’s those subsidies that help shield them from ever actually taking any losses
What I lost in gas & oil I made up (and then some) with the right picks in natural gas. I’m up about 530% in those, last I checked.
There's no direct subsidies in O&G(different than agriculture). It's the favorable tax treatment of drilling costs that reduces, if not eliminate the tax burden to the oil producer.
Arguably, that's a fair trade to the consumer given that the oil company doesn't jack up prices to pay corporate income tax. If the oil company did have to carry that additional tax expense, oil & gas prices would obviously be higher.
Just to be clear, you want Ukrainians to die. I don’t. Why is known only to you. Why you mock efforts to end the war is known only to you.
Last edited:
Thank you for confirming that you consider hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians dying to be cheap and worthwhile (in your mind) so that your ego gets a little boost. There is nothing intellectual about that. You simply do not value their lives. You love contributed to this thread by mocking the efforts to end the war. That’s what you, Flatland,
Willie and others have done here.
That sounds like socialism. Republicans would be against it if it wasn’t making them so much money.
My solution is to NOT mock efforts to end the war. You offer nothing of course.Obsessing today Gibby? Wife have a headache again for the 90th night in a row? (OK, rude personal attack, but probably true. Loyal knows these things).
To point - what is your solution? Ukraine gives up a huge swath of their country and gets no NATO, little protection and WTF else Putin wants? In fairness I would drop Crimea of I was Zelensky. That ship sailed a decade ago.
So spell it out for us Gibby, or kindly STFU.
That said, Ukraine has asked for weapons and ammo. "I don't need a ride, I need ammo". Sound familiar? The US and Europe has given them weapons. They need more. The US is not forcing them down their throat. The poor bastards are fighting for their country and lives, and your dipshits in Washington argue about it. While safe and secure in the US. Except the brown ones.
If my home and country were invaded, I would fight to the death and die with one of my guns in my hand. $5 sez our pal Gibby has never shot, and certainly doesn't own, one. Wifey might - he's no protection for her. (Oops, 2 personal attacks in one post - desperate times these days....)
Finally, perhaps we should ponder the words of Winston Churchill (below) in England's darkest hour. And sidenote, pretty sure that the US was sending major aid, weapons and planes to England back then.
Churchill after Dunkirk:
"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender,
Kinda sounds like Zelensky and Ukraine to me.
Use to magnifying glass and search this forum if you want to see what else I’ve posted.
Just to be clear, you would be the Russian sympathizer, turning in your own neighbors fighting in the resistance and using them as capital for personal gain.
Last edited:
I didn't say anything about celebrating. Don't project your emotions onto others.
If there is going to be a war anyway, why not support the side that is being oppressed? Why not weaken the country that seeks to oppress and subjugate others to keep them from doing it again? None of us want the war in Ukraine to keep going and seeing stories about people dying every day, including children and civilians but we also realize that if Ukraine is weakened in the way that Putin is demanding, it's guaranteeing the future subjugation of the country.
What's truly gross is the fact that your dear leader doesn't view Ukraine as a fight for ideals....but an opportunity to use our leverage to generate wealth for the United States....but not really for the US...for his cronies that can generate wealth from the harvesting of those natural resources. Our country has made mistakes in the past, but it's generally been with the intent to promote western ideals. Trump is exclusively in it for the money and financial gains. He's willing to see hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians die at the hands of the Russian secret police if Ukraine falls if we aren't making a buck off of it.
You talk about saving Ukrainians...but the reality is that you don't give a sh!t about them. What's really dumb is Trump claiming that we need to abandon NATO because we are footing their bills.....at the same time that he's asking Congress to significantly increase military spending and push our military budget over a trillion dollars per year. You spout Russian talking points and whine about the money and military equipment that we give to Ukraine while ignoring that it's insignificant in the big picture.
And again, you dumb f#ckers were all in on bitching about how Biden abandoned Afghanistan but you've got no qualms with Trump showing a willingness to abandon a country whose fall would be far more harmful for us. Our departure from Afghanistan sucked and I hate the way that things went down even if it was inevitable. Repeating that in Ukraine is shameful, particularly since there is no guarantee that Ukraine's fall is inevitable.
What personal gain would that be? The only place that the Russian are coming is on your network of choice- MSNBC (and pornhub).
Last edited:
You started a thread to mock efforts to stop a war. Now you’re trying to weasel your way out of that.
And just to show the gaping hole in your brain, how many personnel is the US going to need to fight these wars? And whe are your signing up?
Weak sauce Gibby. Nobody is "mocking" anything except you. So I directly ask what your solution is to ending the war. YOU have nothing. "Don't mock efforts to end the war". You mean don't mock Putin? Sure as F sounds like it. C'mon tell us. Ukraine should give up its territories, be not allowed to join NATO, and get basically no assurances or security. Those are basically Putin's terms. Is that YOUR solution as well - or not? If not, then what is it?
My solution? Everyone (US, Europe, NATO) ships as much ammo, tanks, planes to Ukraine as humanly possible. Eastern NATO countries ramp up their borders (I believe that Germany is already doing this, as are others). If Ukraine wants to give up, that is their choice. Not ours. Clear enough for you?
And I have no interest in searching this forum for anyone's posts. Especially yours.
Nobody is talking about sending US troops. Quit making stuff up.
The dumbest of Americans believe prices are rising 145% with the next delivery 🚚 🤣
Just like nobody is saying that we should send US troops to Ukraine....nobody is saying that prices will rise 145%. That said, Joe Biden had to go because inflation reached 9% in 2022. Even if the Chinese and retailers eat 90% of the tariff.....that could lead to double digit inflation. It's funny how inflation is acceptable as long as the right team is responsible for it.
The prices are going up. No biz is eating that much of the tariff.
The inventory already here will run dry. It will be replaced with much higher prices or potentially not at all.
Americans are going to spend more $$$ on every day items.
Hey grok, analyze this statement carefully for accuracy:
Over the past 50 years (1975–2025), Americans have paid more for everyday items each year, with the exception of 2009, when prices decreased by 0.4% due to the Great Recession.
answer:
To analyze the accuracy of the statement, “Over the past 50 years (1975–2025), Americans have paid more for everyday items each year, with the exception of 2009, when prices decreased by 0.4% due to the Great Recession,” we need to verify whether the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), which measures the average price change for everyday goods and services (e.g., food, housing, transportation, apparel), increased every year from 1975 to 2025, except for 2009, when it allegedly decreased by 0.4%. The analysis is based on historical data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), supplemented by recent estimates for 2024 and 2025, as of April 21, 2025.
### Step-by-Step Analysis
1. **Defining the Scope**:
- The period spans 1975 to 2025 (50 years, inclusive).
- “Paid more for everyday items each year” implies a positive annual CPI change (inflation) compared to the previous year.
- The statement claims 2009 is the only year with a price decrease (deflation, specifically by 0.4%), attributed to the Great Recession.
2. **Historical CPI Data (1975–2023)**:
- The BLS provides annual CPI-U data, which we can use to check for years with negative or zero CPI changes (indicating no price increase).
- From 1975 to 2007, the CPI increased every year, with annual inflation rates ranging from 1.6% (1998) to 13.5% (1980). Key periods include high inflation in the late 1970s (e.g., 11.3% in 1979) and moderate inflation in the 1990s and 2000s.
- **2008**: The CPI rose by 3.8%, driven by high energy and food prices early in the year, despite the Great Recession’s onset. This confirms prices increased, not decreased, in 2008.
- **2009**: The CPI decreased by 0.4% (precisely -0.3557% per BLS), the first deflationary year since 1955, due to reduced consumer demand, falling energy prices, and economic contraction during the Great Recession. This matches the statement’s claim of a 0.4% decrease in 2009.
- **2010–2023**: The CPI increased every year, with rates ranging from 0.1% (2015, due to low oil prices) to 8.0% (2022, driven by post-pandemic recovery and global supply chain issues). No years in this period had negative or zero CPI changes.
3. **Recent CPI Data (2024–2025)**:
- **2024**: Based on BLS data through August 2024, the CPI rose approximately 2.5% for the year, reflecting continued price increases for everyday items.
- **2025**: For the 12 months ending March 2025, the CPI increased by 2.4%, indicating prices continued to rise compared to 2024. This is consistent with ongoing inflation trends reported by sources like Forbes and Reuters.
4. **Verifying the Exception**:
- The statement claims 2009 is the only year in 1975–2025 when prices did not increase. Historical data confirms:
- **2009** is the only year with deflation (-0.4%) in this period.
- No other year from 1975 to 2025 shows a negative or zero CPI change. Even low-inflation years like 2015 (0.1%) had slight price increases.
- Outside the 50-year window, 1954–1955 saw deflation (-0.4% in 1954), but this is irrelevant to the 1975–2025 period.
- The attribution of 2009’s deflation to the Great Recession is accurate, as the economic downturn reduced demand and lowered prices, particularly for energy and housing-related costs.
5. **Potential Caveats**:
- **Data Precision**: The statement’s 0.4% decrease for 2009 is rounded (actual: -0.3557%), but this is standard for public reporting and does not affect accuracy.
- **CPI Limitations**: The CPI-U reflects urban consumers (about 93% of the U.S. population) and may not capture rural or specific demographic experiences. However, it’s the standard metric for “everyday items” in aggregate.
- **2025 Data**: Since the current date is April 21, 2025, full-year 2025 data is incomplete. However, the 2.4% increase through March 2025 strongly suggests positive inflation for the year, consistent with forecasts (e.g., Federal Reserve’s 2.4–2.8% PCE inflation projection for 2025).
- **Regional Variations**: Prices for specific items (e.g., food, gas) vary by region, but the statement refers to aggregate national trends, which CPI-U captures.
6. **Conclusion**:
- The statement is **accurate**. From 1975 to 2025, the CPI increased every year except 2009, when it decreased by 0.4% due to the Great Recession. No other deflationary or zero-inflation years occurred in this period.
- The data aligns with BLS records for 1975–2023,
### Final Answer
The statement is accurate: Over the past 50 years (1975–2025), Americans have paid more for everyday items each year, with the exception of 2009, when prices decreased by 0.4% due to the Great Recession, as confirmed by CPI-U data showing consistent annual price increases except for that year.
Over the past 50 years (1975–2025), Americans have paid more for everyday items each year, with the exception of 2009, when prices decreased by 0.4% due to the Great Recession.
answer:
To analyze the accuracy of the statement, “Over the past 50 years (1975–2025), Americans have paid more for everyday items each year, with the exception of 2009, when prices decreased by 0.4% due to the Great Recession,” we need to verify whether the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), which measures the average price change for everyday goods and services (e.g., food, housing, transportation, apparel), increased every year from 1975 to 2025, except for 2009, when it allegedly decreased by 0.4%. The analysis is based on historical data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), supplemented by recent estimates for 2024 and 2025, as of April 21, 2025.
### Step-by-Step Analysis
1. **Defining the Scope**:
- The period spans 1975 to 2025 (50 years, inclusive).
- “Paid more for everyday items each year” implies a positive annual CPI change (inflation) compared to the previous year.
- The statement claims 2009 is the only year with a price decrease (deflation, specifically by 0.4%), attributed to the Great Recession.
2. **Historical CPI Data (1975–2023)**:
- The BLS provides annual CPI-U data, which we can use to check for years with negative or zero CPI changes (indicating no price increase).
- From 1975 to 2007, the CPI increased every year, with annual inflation rates ranging from 1.6% (1998) to 13.5% (1980). Key periods include high inflation in the late 1970s (e.g., 11.3% in 1979) and moderate inflation in the 1990s and 2000s.
- **2008**: The CPI rose by 3.8%, driven by high energy and food prices early in the year, despite the Great Recession’s onset. This confirms prices increased, not decreased, in 2008.
- **2009**: The CPI decreased by 0.4% (precisely -0.3557% per BLS), the first deflationary year since 1955, due to reduced consumer demand, falling energy prices, and economic contraction during the Great Recession. This matches the statement’s claim of a 0.4% decrease in 2009.
- **2010–2023**: The CPI increased every year, with rates ranging from 0.1% (2015, due to low oil prices) to 8.0% (2022, driven by post-pandemic recovery and global supply chain issues). No years in this period had negative or zero CPI changes.
3. **Recent CPI Data (2024–2025)**:
- **2024**: Based on BLS data through August 2024, the CPI rose approximately 2.5% for the year, reflecting continued price increases for everyday items.
- **2025**: For the 12 months ending March 2025, the CPI increased by 2.4%, indicating prices continued to rise compared to 2024. This is consistent with ongoing inflation trends reported by sources like Forbes and Reuters.
4. **Verifying the Exception**:
- The statement claims 2009 is the only year in 1975–2025 when prices did not increase. Historical data confirms:
- **2009** is the only year with deflation (-0.4%) in this period.
- No other year from 1975 to 2025 shows a negative or zero CPI change. Even low-inflation years like 2015 (0.1%) had slight price increases.
- Outside the 50-year window, 1954–1955 saw deflation (-0.4% in 1954), but this is irrelevant to the 1975–2025 period.
- The attribution of 2009’s deflation to the Great Recession is accurate, as the economic downturn reduced demand and lowered prices, particularly for energy and housing-related costs.
5. **Potential Caveats**:
- **Data Precision**: The statement’s 0.4% decrease for 2009 is rounded (actual: -0.3557%), but this is standard for public reporting and does not affect accuracy.
- **CPI Limitations**: The CPI-U reflects urban consumers (about 93% of the U.S. population) and may not capture rural or specific demographic experiences. However, it’s the standard metric for “everyday items” in aggregate.
- **2025 Data**: Since the current date is April 21, 2025, full-year 2025 data is incomplete. However, the 2.4% increase through March 2025 strongly suggests positive inflation for the year, consistent with forecasts (e.g., Federal Reserve’s 2.4–2.8% PCE inflation projection for 2025).
- **Regional Variations**: Prices for specific items (e.g., food, gas) vary by region, but the statement refers to aggregate national trends, which CPI-U captures.
6. **Conclusion**:
- The statement is **accurate**. From 1975 to 2025, the CPI increased every year except 2009, when it decreased by 0.4% due to the Great Recession. No other deflationary or zero-inflation years occurred in this period.
- The data aligns with BLS records for 1975–2023,
### Final Answer
The statement is accurate: Over the past 50 years (1975–2025), Americans have paid more for everyday items each year, with the exception of 2009, when prices decreased by 0.4% due to the Great Recession, as confirmed by CPI-U data showing consistent annual price increases except for that year.
The first two sentences of this thread are:
In case you haven’t heard, the great negotiator is now talking about abandoning Ukraine because he is learning that his idiotic bullying tactics aren’t going to work on Russia. Putin gives zero f#cks about Trump and knows that there isn’t anything Trump can do that hasn’t already been done.
“I think the bottom line here is that some posters dislike the United States acting like a superpower.”
So what is it? Do you want the United States to act like a superpower or not? You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Every war is more than any superpower can do, especially without Flatland and other chickenhawks standing on the sideline. Not hard to understand.
Why do you want to throw more Ukrainians into the meat grinder?
Why do Ukrainians want to throw more Ukrainians into the meat grinder?
Why are you and 90 cheering it on?
Are Ukrainians ready for ceasefire and concessions? Here’s what the polls say
More Ukrainians are willing to negotiate for peace now than in the early stages of the conflict − but clear red lines remain for the public.
theconversation.com
Similar threads
