First, we had the imbecile Putin damage the global prices of energy when he invaded Ukraine. Now we have Trump and Israel screwing up global prices. It has almost doubled. LNG has also increased in price because its energy locations are getting blown up.
At the current trajectory, it could become triple the price.
It shows how dangerous it is for Europe to have oil sanctiions against Russia - which they break regularly anyway - coupled to instabiliy in he ME.
The effect of the prices in the USA is minimal - sine hey do not need to import oil from either. The Ayatollah arse-licking countries in Europe are badly effected since - if they do not buy oil from Russia - it is dependent on the ME for oil imports,
They are not prepared to do anything against Iran promoting terrorism and civil wars worldwide as well as developing nucleasr armaments as long as they get oil from the ME. In the USA political instability and outtright corruption by the Biden Autopen Regime led to unlawful support of the A yatollah rgime by the corupt U S Presidency.
The present situation is catastrophic for the EU countries, When Iranian armed Houthi's attacked cargo carriying ships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden damaged the oil trade of Europe in 2025, they ran to the he USA to protect the shipping. The USA moved two warships to he area and wiped out the attacks in four days by bombing the Houthi installations in Yeman. Boats used by the Houthi's and Somalians to attacking ships were also been destroyed, Unlike in the case of Venezuela boats destroyed was not "fishing boats" as claimed by the fake media - so self-interest has aways been put ahead of real future threats.
Unlike under the Biden regime when oil from the USA strategic oil were corruptly sold to China and imports of oil - not necessary in the period 2018 to 2020 - was resumed by the Biden-Autopen corruption resumed, But in fact the USA do not need any importation of oil and that makes the present oil prizes immaterial insofar as the USA is concerned.
The present situation is vbad for th e NA TO cou ntries and they will doubtlessly startin g buying more oil from Russia and blame the U SA fr t heoor present vows,
So is it not time to stop arse-licking by European countries of Putin and the Ayatollah and start looking at how world stability can be restored? The biggest potential threat to NATO is not from Russia - but the empire the Ayatollah Regime wants to establish in the ME and African xcountries - but the NATO leadership is only interested in short term survival and not long term self-protection.
The farce is that the country with the strong est amy - after the USA - is Turkey and Turkey and Egypt are - other than the US A - he only countries trying to get stabilityback in the ME and North Africa - while NA TO countries pretend they are beyond protecting their long term interests,
By the weay SA also ets its oil from Iran nd today the town of Riversdale has been hit by a petrol shortage - assuming that it aplies to all S A cities and towns.. I do not have money available before 27 March for bulk shopping and hope that it would not affect the situation too badly before that date. So SA is in the same bad-loss situation as the EU countries are, SA is however in a slighty better situation - since they can get oil directly from Russia and not through third parties, In the meantime the Russians are laughing all the way to the bank insofar as long as the present situation exists.
. .
DumbMike, fact America is the largest oil producer in the world, but they still import a lot of oil.
There are different types of oil that are from different places in the world. America mostly produces light oil as a result of fracking.
The price of oil is going up all over the world. Obviously, Europe should ban Russian oil and gas.
Visser, I hope you have some dry powder waiting to put in a short.
I'll be using my gambling fund and going in with an irresponsibly big leverage short at some point.
What are you laughing at, ButtPlug? It is not just Europe that will have higher energy prices. The global price increases.
Plum, weren't you the one saying oil wouldn't go up again when it was on $87?
Nope, I'm expecting it be volatile, kind of a perfect trading range between 80 and 110. 150 is possible but if it does go there, sell everything you own and short the living shit out of the price because I promise you that is what everybody else is gonna do.
Right now, traders are overbuying good news and overselling bad news, as one would expect given the circumstances. Actually let me look at the chart quickly...
Above is the daily chart, each candle represents the opening and closing prices for the day. The thin line protruding from the top and bottom are the highest and lowest prices for that day.
Correction; it was late when I made the above - this is the 5 day chart for oil. Doesn't really change the point but have to be honest and admit I provided the wrong chart.
Look toward the end of the chart, see how aggressively the high gets sold and how quickly the dump gets bought up. To me that indicates a short term trading range has been established.
The trend is obviously up and that indicates higher, but it's also parabolic and that indicates a fast dump when a dump does come. The $120ish price from 2022 is a big resistance zone. One which could be broken on the back of some terrible news in the current conflict. The moment it goes over 120 I'll be shorting it to 95 because at that point, even if it goes up to 130-140, it's gonna dump aggressively after, probably back to 80ish, but I'll have made my 20%.
That's my analysis at a glance.
Putin caused massive inflation when he attacked Ukraine, and now it appears the same thing is going to happen.
Apparently the biggest Gas field in the world that was hit yesterday could take 3-5 years to get back to what it was. Around 20% of it was destroyed.
Fake news.
Inflation was already skyrocketing...
Here is a worst case scenario for you, Visser, since we're talking about inflation...
5 years from now...
1) Large swathes of white collar jobs are lost due to AI replacing people
2) Those employees have historically been AAA rated mortgage customers
3) They have to liquidate assets and stocks to survive and pay their mortgages
4) The US house market is currently 3 times the size of what it was back in 2007/8
5) Governments are forced to print money but the amount they are forced to print causes irrevocable inflation
6) The world's economy collapses.
Holy shit...the American's are talking about removing sanctions on some Iranian oil exports to ease the cost of energy crisis they caused by attacking Iran. You could not make this up.
Looked at the oil price today and though I'd share the quick analysis i did. Just some lunch time fun.
Seems my trading range prediction is playing out.
The highs are continuing to be sold very aggressively.
It's only been a couple of weeks since this move began, daily charts aren't the greatest to work off, and with two weeks of data one can only do so much.
To be honest though, this is exactly how i would have seen the oil price reacting to the Iran conflict - A big initial move, sold off aggressively, people buying up dips and then selling highs and ultimately a trading range being formed. I've plotted what i think that range likely is(in purple) on the chart below as well as when one should short(in green). Ultimately, an ascending triangle was formed, as drawn on the chart, and it broke down, which they normally do. Will be interesting to see where price bounces over the next few days.
Let's see how that plays out and I'll continue to update the chart if the price keeps moving as aggressively in both directions.
What's interesting is that the price touched $92 today and was bought back up to $100 quite quickly. That indicates some strength.
Oh, price is on the right of the image...
"Holy shit...the American's are talking about removing sanctions on some Iranian oil exports to ease the cost of energy crisis they caused by attacking Iran. You could not make this up."
Sanctions only drives the price up. Iran sells it at a discount to BRICKS...but still sell it while it drives up the open market price ...the sanctions doesn't help at all...I said weeks ago it should be lifted...the logical choice.
Fake news.
Inflation was already skyrocketing...
The line should be slightly more to the left.
The Ukraine war contributed to inflation and then it kept it high, effectively replacing the original causes of the inflation.
I disagree.
Covid saw US M2 rise by $5-6 trillion. The biggest money print in history.
Inflation was skyrocketing prior to the war.
...because the war didn't mark the magical turning point where inflation began trending down being used to say that the war caused inflation or kept it high is frankly laughable LMAO
FYI For the majority of the war, inflation has been trending down.
Look at the graph for God sake
...because the war didn't mark the magical turning point where inflation began trending down being used to say that the war caused inflation or kept it high is frankly laughable LMAO
I'm sorry I'll take the word of economists over you any day of the week. It had a major impact on global inflation and in the US in 2022 and 2023 and even had some lingering affects into 2024.
FYI For the majority of the war, inflation has been trending down.
Look at the graph for God sake
Tending down doesn't mean it wasn't having an effect, it slowed the rate of inflation decline.
Majority of the war, that graph just extends a year.
kl
Oh, you mean like economists at the IMF that rated the war'a impact on inflation as modest while placing the majority of the responsibility on monetary policy during COVID?
Or do you mean the European Parliament that stated that inflation would have risen sharply without the war and that stagflation was always a concern, one that was warned about long before Putin decided to enter Ukraine?
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2023/741487/IPOL_IDA%282023%29741487_EN.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Perhaps, you're talking about the FED economists who rated that the war increased inflation by no more than 1.3%? They called it noticeable but far from dominant.
Or perhaps your talking about economists at the largest hedge funds that placed monetary policy, supply chain disruption and demand rebound as all plying a larger role in inflation than the Ukraine war?
The war mattered, of course it did, but it was never a major contributor. But this was Visser's claim "Putin caused massive inflation when he attacked Ukraine, and now it appears the same thing is going to happen."
Which is, as I said, is the fakest of fake news.
And then we can discuss Powel's soft landing hypothesis. You know, the idea that the inflation caused by COVID monetary policy needed to be managed very carefully(IT WAS THE LARGEST MONEY PRINT IN HISTORY) as bringing it down too quickly would cause a recession. How the FED specifically engineered a soft landing while they could have taken a far more hawkish approach and slammed the brakes on, but intentionally chose not to. How many were arguing for the Fed to pull the plaster off but Powel stood his ground and did in fact generate that soft landing - much credit to the man for that. Something I'd actually like Moz's opinion on because, unlike you, he actually understands economics and is able to provide valuable insights.
PS Trad, nice cartoon. Apologies, I don't have pictures to explain all of this to you.
Oh, you mean like economists at the IMF that rated the war'a impact on inflation as modest while placing the majority of the responsibility on monetary policy during COVID?
Yes the IMF
Or do you mean the European Parliament that stated that inflation would have risen sharply without the war and that stagflation was always a concern, one that was warned about long before Putin decided to enter Ukraine?
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2023/741487/IPOL_IDA%282023%29741487_EN.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Well their not economists but did you happen to read you own link by any chance
Quote 'The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the related energy crisis have undoubtedly had a significant impact on the euro area economy and inflation.
And no one said inflation wasn't an issue before the Ukraine war.
Perhaps, you're talking about the FED economists who rated that the war increased inflation by no more than 1.3%? They called it noticeable but far from dominant.
Yes that assessment came from people within the FED, but it was an early assessment that evolved over time and never the majority view. The FED has consistently stated the war had a significant impact on inflation.
Or perhaps your talking about economists at the largest hedge funds that placed monetary policy, supply chain disruption and demand rebound as all plying a larger role in inflation than the Ukraine war?
There is thousands of economists globally, the over whelming view of which is that the Ukraine war was a significant factor in driving inflation (not the sole cause).
Which is, as I said, is the fakest of fake news.
The indoctrination is strong with this one.
And then we can discuss Powel's soft landing hypothesis. You know, the idea that the inflation caused by COVID monetary policy needed to be managed very carefully(IT WAS THE LARGEST MONEY PRINT IN HISTORY) as bringing it down too quickly would cause a recession. How the FED specifically engineered a soft landing while they could have taken a far more hawkish approach and slammed the brakes on, but intentionally chose not to. How many were arguing for the Fed to pull the plaster off but Powel stood his ground and did in fact generate that soft landing - much credit to the man for that. Something I'd actually like Moz's opinion on because, unlike you, he actually understands economics and is able to provide valuable insights.
I understand reality and can see through political biases. When your done consulting him...come join us out in reality...it's actually more interesting and the world makes a lot more sense.
TLDR My guy thinks that the printing of $6t and the rocket ship of inflation it caused was gonna be stopped by the Russia Ukraine war starting. I do remember reporting at the time, from the US, where lefty channels were placing the majority of the blame for inflation on the war. Having been closely following the FED meetings and rate decisions for the year prior...I found that reporting hilariously clear bullshit. So did everybody else.
I guess, the fact the war didn't stop inflation thus means that the war must have contributed significantly regardless of the upward momentum inflation already had going for it due to defined and accepted factors mentioned previously. How does one make an argument like that with a straight face and expect anyone to take you seriously!?
Perhaps the problem is that I am considering the US and global inflation as opposed to Europe alone.
Obviously the war contributed more to inflation in Europe than everywhere else...did you think that was some kind of news to me?
For interest sake...
I used German inflation below because they would have been one the countries the the hardest hit by inflation caused by Russia/Ukraine, and then ran that against US infaltion.
The blue line represents the start of the war.
...what do you notice?
1) German inflation basically mirrors US inflation while lagging behind it.
2) US inflation already close to peak prior to the war.
No reason to suspect that German inflation would not continue to mirror US inflation as it had done before and after the war.
You could keep attempting to appeal to authority and i could keep finding my own apepals to authroity or you coud simply look at what is in fornt of ytou.
TLDR My guy thinks that the printing of $6t and the rocket ship of inflation it caused was gonna be stopped the Russia Ukraine war starting. I do remember reporting at the time, from the US, where lefty channels were placing the majority of the blame for inflation on the war. Having been closely following the FED meetings and rate decisions for the year prior...I found that reporting hilariously clear bullshit. So did everybody else.
TLDR, My guy think's that the original causes of inflation that year was going last forever and the Russia Ukraine war couldn't possible have an effect...well am I strawman-ing properly yet?
I do remember at the the time the righty channels, were placing the majority on the blame for Biden's stimulus package. Have been closing following the a multitude of financial experts and economist...I found that reporting hilariously clear bullshit. So did everybody else who wasn't busy watching for UFO's.
I guess, the fact the war didn't stop inflation thus means that the war must have contributed significantly regardless of the upward momentum inflation already had going for it due to defined and accepted factors mentioned previously. How does one make an argument like that with a straight face and expect anyone to take you seriously!?
Because it's not the argument I'm making. I'm aware of the contributing factors to inflation before the war, supply based constraints following the opening up from Covid Lockdowns along with Biden's stimulus package etc accounted for the pre war inflation rise...but gradually over time they subsided, inflation would of come down much more quickly if not for the war in Ukraine.
Perhaps the problem is that I am considering the US and global inflation as opposed to Europe alone.
Oh I'm happy to admit that it contributed inflation more in Europe than the US...but it still had a significant impact on inflation both in the States and globally. That's pretty established fact by now.
did you think that was some kind of news to me?
I didn't say it was...but you were the one responded to Sharkbok, post about Putin's ware causing massive inflation, by calling it fake news.
I used German inflation below because they would have been one the countries the the hardest hit by inflation caused by Russia/Ukraine, and then ran that against US infaltion.
The blue line represents the start of the war.
...what do you notice?
1) German inflation basically mirrors US inflation while lagging behind it.
2) US inflation already close to peak prior to the war.
No reason to suspect that German inflation would not continue to mirror US inflation as it had done before and after the war.
Yes German inflation did lag American inflation because Germany like the rest of Europe came out of lockdown a few months after the US did and then it faced the same supply constraints the US did.
Nothing in that graph is telling me anything knew
You could keep attempting to appeal to authority and i could keep finding my own apepals to authroity or you coud simply look at what is in fornt of ytou.
I provided links to the research and findings of those authorities, when you back a claim up with evidence it's not an appeal to authority. Aside from which they are they very authorities that you claimed supported you're argument, yet just a couple of seconds searching online exposes that they don't. Hell you even provided a link to a source that directly contradicted it, telling me you didn't bother to even read it. Go back to the UFO watching son.
So you admit German inflation was indeed, as shown on the chart, simply lagging US inflation, and US inflation had all but peaked by the time the Russian war started.
I do see you're hiding behind the ambiguity of "significantly"...when in a best case scenario it added sometime like 1.5% to already sky high inflation in the US...the chart is literally there.
Well done on missing the point. That being that even if you attribute all the inflation from the day the war started to the war, then you're at 1.5% for the US. Clearly, inflation was not on the verge of trending down the very day or week that the war started...so you can rip a good extra chuck out of that 1.5%.
And then what are you're left with? 1%, perhaps 0,5%...yeah guy, "Significant".
You're only real refuge is to say that the Russian war caused inflation to take longer to drop, but as you can see from the very same chart above...it came up pretty steeply and down pretty steeply, against the backdrop of a Fed chair that specifically stated, at almost every Fed press conference for six months that his priority was to avoid a recession and engineer a soft landing. And then you've attempted to use the gradual reduction of inflation by a cautious Federal reserve to say that the Russian war caused inflation to stay higher for, that word again, "significantly" longer.
You keep saying "Economists said it was significant" and "it was significant"...but the actual numbers right in front of you belie that.
You're yet to define what significant actually means and you've also hidden from stating when exactly you expected inflation to start trending down had there been no war.
The very simply logic...something can't be said to have caused something to be sky high, when it was already sky high and climbing when that thing happened.
It's really not that difficult.
Also, from the paper I posted a link to...
"The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the related energy crisis have undoubtedly had a significant
impact on the euro area economy and inflation. Yet, the extraordinary circumstances and the
simultaneity of different shocks make it challenging to say how much of the inflation is due to the
reopening of the economy after COVID-19 and how much is due to the war. Despite attempting to shed
some light on this debate, we deem it too complicated to give a precise quantitative answer to this
question."
In summary "we know it contributed but we don't know how much".
You're starting at 90 and calling the jump to 100 "significant" in defence of a statement that claimed the Russian war was the cause of sky high inflation.
Fine, if the final 10 is significant then what is the first 90? Super mega uber ultra significant? Or can we just use our brains and call the first 90 the primary and easily most significant cause of inflation and the last 10 simply an annoyance.
I can't dumb it down any more for you, chap.
"...but gradually over time they subsided, inflation would have come down much more quickly if not for the war in Ukraine."
Here you go, perhaps this from Powel might shed some light for you...
Jerome Powel - "A soft landing is a primary objective,” Powell said, “That's what we've been trying to achieve for all this time.”
...just be honest and admit that you were totally oblivious to this until today.
So you admit German inflation was indeed, as shown on the chart, simply lagging US inflation,
How's that an admission, I never stated otherwise.
and US inflation had all but peaked by the time the Russian war started.
Were did I admit that?
I do see you're hiding behind the ambiguity of "significantly"...when in a best case scenario it added sometime like 1.5% to already sky high inflation in the US...the chart is literally there.
Oh let me remove the ambiguity of it then. 1.5% is significant in the in the context of a spike to 9.1% or a inflation rate that's 7 points over target. Meaning it accounted for over 20% of the inflation excess. And the chart does not show anything other than what the inflation rate at a certain point of time, it does not break down the cause of that inflation.
Well done on missing the point. That being that even if you attribute all the inflation from the day the war started to the war, then you're at 1.5% for the US. Clearly, inflation was not on the verge of trending down the very day or week that the war started...so you can rip a good extra chuck out of that 1.5%.
And then what are you're left with? 1%, perhaps 0,5%...yeah guy, "Significant".
You argue like 1.5% is established fact. You're just cherry picking the a data point that suits you. It ain't, there is a whole range of estimates, some go as high as 3-4.5 points. And this was for the US, and you freely admit the inflation effect was higher in Europe.
And Shark never mentioned he was talking solely about the US. It was a general statement...Putin's war caused a massive spike in inflation...and if you want to argue that's an exaggeration fine, but's it's 100 times closer to the truth than calling it fake news, which is just absurd.
You're only real refuge is to say that the Russian war caused inflation to take longer to drop, but as you can see from the very same chart above...it came up pretty steeply and down pretty steeply, against the backdrop of a Fed chair that specifically stated, at almost every Fed press conference for six months that his priority was to avoid a recession and engineer a soft landing. And then you've attempted to use the gradual reduction of inflation by a cautious Federal reserve to say that the Russian war caused inflation to stay higher for, that word again, "significantly" longer.
It's not a refuge, it's the established opinion of the majority of the worlds economists.
I can't dumb it down any more for you, chap.
Because your starting argument was as dumb an argument as you can make it not even Mike would have the capacity to make it dumber,
...just be honest and admit that you were totally oblivious to this until today.
Just be honest and admit that dismissing a claim that Putin's invasion of Ukraine caused a massive inflation spike as fake news was just silly.
Oh let me remove the ambiguity of it then. 1.5% is significant in the in the context of a spike to 9.1% or a inflation rate that's 7 points over target. Meaning it accounted for over 20% of the inflation excess
You might call an additional 1.5% to 9.1% significant if it was enduring. But it wasn’t, gas declined quickly and the underlying driver wasn’t nearly as enduring as the Biden sponsored demand increase.
So it gave the appearance of adding significantly to inflation, which was seized upon by Biden apologists, who still ramble on about lag effects….but if it’s genuine stickiness on the way down with gas prices, we would still expect ongoing benefits in 2024 onwards.
But inflation has plateaued suggesting other underlying factors….namely Biden just pushed too much money into the system.
The establishment economists may not like that story, and blaming US inflation on the Ukraine lets them all off the hook, but it fits much better than the lagging on the way down theory. Here, look at these numbers:
Inflation at the end of 2022 was lower than it was at the end of 2021, despite all the so called lag effects. It went up fast and it declined fast….ie unless you are stuck on blaming the Ukraine instead of Biden, it’s obvious the Ukraine was temporary.
Nor is it correct to assume all the forces pushing inflation up to a peak in December 2021 simply stopped when the Ukraine war started. So even the shock effect is probably overstated
My intuition is inflation was still running up fast at the end of 2022. So to assume anything after January 2022 is Ukraine is naive. Much of that additional bump looks suspiciously like the ongoing effects of excess demand….at least until March 2022 when inflation was already 8.6%. That calculus yields at best a 0.5% Ukraine bump.
Chat’s summary
The Ukraine war explains the mid-2022 spike, but not the underlying rise in inflation or its persistence afterward.
………
I’m not sure I even agree the Ukraine war explains the mid 2022 spike, given inflation was 8.0 % in February before the war and 8.6 percent in March, actually dropped in April and maybe 8.7% in May. To me it looks like a nothing burger in the US or perhaps an excuse burger.
Were you even aware of those numbers? Be honest now. Did you know inflation was already at 8.5% before any Ukraine effects could have worked through the system?
Pretty much how I see it too, Moz.
US inflation was already massive, and moving higher, when the war started. And German inflation tracked but lagged US inflation.
So even in one of the hardest hit Euro countries it's difficult to make the case that war was as large a factor as Stavie insists it is.
Keeping an eye on oil and its not really doing anything surprising. I've added a higher risk buy level...lets see if it bounces there.
Other than that, its respecting the trading zone quite nicely.
Inflation no doubt plays a role i- but what is more important is the decline in GDP of countrie due to recession is also a particular problem. The German economy has been in recession for the past 4 fiscal years.
In the EU countries the Green policy had a negative impact on agruiculture produe and as a result has an impactt on inflation. That is why the EU countries kept buying oil and gas and food from Russia - while with no stopping of importing Russian food products as well, Knowing the dependence of EU countries on Rssian inport all Putin did was to bedevil the situation further by rice increases on EU imports. .
Weak and ineffective Govenance in Europe plays a major role in economic decline in Europe. In Germany the problem relatesd to industrial recession - and recession has a major impact on inflation since the Russian charged more for the products imported by EU countries as well, . So to put the blame for inflation on solely either the Ukraine War and Iran situation as the reason for the ever=prsent inlfation is childish BS.
Fact is at present 25 countries have agreed to help safeguard shipping in he Persian Gulf to clean up mines in that Gulf is important as well, But as Plum stated the prolem is in general is not the War situation alone. In the main it is really a situation of the EU countries effective destroying their own countries economicallly
,
clevermikeHall Of Famer
57,214 posts
Mar 25, 2026, 14:41
Inflatgion no doubt plays a role in inflation...
Some insightful stuff...
Wrong Shark….some inslightful stuff.
Also, I smashed my car into a tree the other day. Totally wrecked it. A passer by then came and chucked a rock at my car.
The insurers said the damage from the rock was...significant.
Lol.....
Yeah, it really made a huge impact on the damage
Don't laugh...they said it was significant. It damaged paint and caused a dent.
I asked, what about the rest of the car, they said "Did not you hear, we just used the word significant?"
You might call an additional 1.5% to 9.1% significant if it was enduring. But it wasn’t, gas declined quickly and the underlying driver wasn’t nearly as enduring as the Biden sponsored demand increase.
So it gave the appearance of adding significantly to inflation, which was seized upon by Biden apologists, who still ramble on about lag effects….but if it’s genuine stickiness on the way down with gas prices, we would still expect ongoing benefits in 2024 onwards.
But inflation has plateaued suggesting other underlying factors….namely Biden just pushed too much money into the system.
The establishment economists may not like that story, and blaming US inflation on the Ukraine lets them all off the hook, but it fits much better
This is just the right wing narrative verbatim that's been told over and over. And again your choosing a low ball figure that you think better suits you argument than a figure generally agreed by economists. Yes Biden's policies contributed to inflation before the war and yes the Biden administration tried to put too much emphasis on the War in Ukraine for inflation in the US just as right wing pundits put too much blame on Biden and ignored supply chain constraints coming out of Covid lockdown and then ignored the effects on the war in Ukraine, because it suited both of them politically to do so.
Ah yes when economists say some something you don't like, label them as 'established economists' that thusly can be ignored without reason.. Classic cherry picking...I'll only use experts if they suit my argument.
It's the general position of most economists that the War in Ukraine had a major impact on inflation globally. More so in Europe than the US. But the idea that invasion of Ukraine did not cause a major spike inflation was fake news is laughable.
Nor is it correct to assume all the forces pushing inflation up to a peak in December 2021 simply stopped when the Ukraine war started. So even the shock effect is probably overstated.
Not was I assuming that.
My intuition is inflation was still running up fast at the end of 2022. So to assume anything after January 2022 is Ukraine is naive.
What's naive to believe is that none of the inflation before February 2022 was caused by the war in Ukraine. Just like we have seen again with the Iran war...energy, food and fertilizer prices started to increase in late 2021 (in addition to what they were already increasing over* before the war, as markets began to anticipate the war.
Were you even aware of those numbers? Be honest now. Did you know inflation was already at 8.5% before any Ukraine effects could have worked through the system?
You do realise we had a very long winded discussion before on this...where you ended essentially ending coming around to my position, that at most Biden was responsible for about 3 points of inflation and that it was wrong for people to assign most of the inflation to him. P
I asked, what about the rest of the car, they said "Did not you hear, we just used the word significant?"
Ah yes derisive mocking dismissal, the last refuge of a beaten man. I take it that's an acknowledgement your argument has finally run out of road.
Perhaps you'd be better off doing some UFO research, Stavie.
Ah yes when economists say some something you don't like, label them as 'established economists'
Talking about labels.....the irony here is hilarious.....because mostly everything that you don't agree with, from any poster.....on almost any topic that gets brought up on this forum, including this thread as well.... you quickly and repeatedly label "right wing narrative"
