No I’m pointing out that saying these gas prices are good and that saying these gas prices are worth the cost of x thing are completely different statements in all ways and the second is reasonable in some scenarios not in this one but in some.
Except not; saying “Iran war is worth economic pain” and “high gas prices are loved” are different arguments even if both are absurd they are not functionally similar arguments.
That’s literally the free market behaving as it’s supposed to. Prices are increased to the highest point all goods get sold, so during shortages prices spike.
If you don’t like this, you don’t like capitalism.
It’s the word “excuse” that doesn’t fit right. There is no shame in the action for them, no duplicity or deception. The Iran war is an opportunity for them to jack up the price, an opportunity they always take when available as is their fiduciary duty.
Except that the problem isn’t only from the cartel right now, the problem is that now a important route was blocked due to war which made petroil transport harder making it more pricey and that reflects on prices that consumers see
Technically, not quite. Saying something is good is not the same as saying it’s worth it. To use a stupidly simplified example: throwing away $40 is not good. Throwing away $40 when it gets you a new video game might be worth it, if you decide you want the video game.
Of course, that does require that you want the video game. And if it’s a game you think is bad, then you’ve created a lose-lose situation. Which is how most of us would evaluate the situation in the OP. But some people clearly support the war on Iran. They should be criticised for that support itself. But there’s no inconsistency with believing some negatives brought about because of it might be “worth it” for the outcomes of the war.
Completely different headlines and trust me I’m not defending trump.
It kind of looks like you do
No I’m pointing out that saying these gas prices are good and that saying these gas prices are worth the cost of x thing are completely different statements in all ways and the second is reasonable in some scenarios not in this one but in some.
The point isn’t that they’re word for word the same but that the onion made a joke about the trump cult that came true
Except not; saying “Iran war is worth economic pain” and “high gas prices are loved” are different arguments even if both are absurd they are not functionally similar arguments.
Boy wait until you find out why gas prices are high
The oil cartels using a highly unpopular war as an excuse to jack the prices up?
Yeah, nothing to do with the Strait of Hormuz
That’s literally the free market behaving as it’s supposed to. Prices are increased to the highest point all goods get sold, so during shortages prices spike.
If you don’t like this, you don’t like capitalism.
Yeah? Thanks for proving my point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity
Its not like noone knew a war with iran would result in them blockading the strait…
It’s the word “excuse” that doesn’t fit right. There is no shame in the action for them, no duplicity or deception. The Iran war is an opportunity for them to jack up the price, an opportunity they always take when available as is their fiduciary duty.
Except that the problem isn’t only from the cartel right now, the problem is that now a important route was blocked due to war which made petroil transport harder making it more pricey and that reflects on prices that consumers see
And yet Saudia is in full support of the US attacking iran. Weird that.
The airline?
Relevance? Second isn’t saying high gas prices are good but they are worth it for “so and so goal” not the same.
Give it a couple more months to line up more literally, then they won’t even need a reason to love the pedo’s plans
They have slightly different words, but they mean the same thing.
Technically, not quite. Saying something is good is not the same as saying it’s worth it. To use a stupidly simplified example: throwing away $40 is not good. Throwing away $40 when it gets you a new video game might be worth it, if you decide you want the video game.
Of course, that does require that you want the video game. And if it’s a game you think is bad, then you’ve created a lose-lose situation. Which is how most of us would evaluate the situation in the OP. But some people clearly support the war on Iran. They should be criticised for that support itself. But there’s no inconsistency with believing some negatives brought about because of it might be “worth it” for the outcomes of the war.
Exactly unsure what I’m saying wrong people aren’t getting this is what i mean.