R_P wrote:  

I don't pay much attention to Brent.  Maybe it went up that much in your currency but not ours.  % wise the increase was the same.  At 3.30am ET, the prices are dropping with NYMEX / WTI back down below $59 and Brent is below $65  both up only 7.5% and 8% respectively and still falling.  By market open over here at 9.30am ET, they both will likely be up only around 5%., or flat since the opening at worst.  This is what happens when computers start trading when markets open after a weekend of drama.

You scare too easily.  You sure couldn't have handled the 60's and then the gas rationing in the 70's when the Oil Embargo was going on.  Life is good, this is a local event in a place far away from here and its immediate impact is slight.  But I do get it.  You are scared to death that the world is going to end in 12 years due to Climate Change.

westslope wrote: 
You are basically correct as I see this.  While we don't agree all that much, your understanding of global economics and the straightforwardness of your thoughts impresses me.

I am not worried about the USA going to war over this for the first time in my lifetime.  North America is fully energy independent and we do not have to do anything if we do not want to.  No one can hold us over an oil barrel anymore and force us to do things in order to keep a secure supply of petroleum flowing.  Thank whoever you wish that Trump won instead of Hillary.  Trump did in two years for oil production that Obama said would take more than ten years to ramp up, if even that quickly.  Missiles would be flying already because our domestic oil production would have been shut down to a trickle by now if she had won the election.  Look what she did to Libya.  And if Obama was still POTUS, he would have surrendered and or asked Vlad to bail us out like he did in Syria with all that red line stuff because he was doing his best to kill domestic oil production, too.  Syria ... now who really is Putin's bitch ?  Remember him off mic telling what's his nuts to tell Vlad that he could be more flexible after the election.  Maybe what happened to Crimea is what Obama meant by being flexible.  Eh ?????

Anyway, yes Iran holds the Straits of Hormuz in its front pocket.  But that is all they have and if they play it, they have shot their wad and the gloves come off.  They will most likely hold tight to that card as long as they can before they play it.  Bolton is gone, so the war drummer is gone.  We can keep the world energy markets stable for longer than Iran can endure the sanctions on them.  They are just about finished.  The last figure I saw is that their pension system that covers nearly 7 million people is just about bankrupt, their currency inflation since the sanctions is 70% and their economy is expected to contract roughly 25% if they hold their present course.  Their daily oil exports are down to roughly 100k bbls per day.  Down from nearly 1 million per day when the sanctions really took hold.  I guess that they have spent most of the $150 billion that Obama gave them on his way out the door.  If they thought that they could drive up oil prices by blowing up the oil field, they are mistaken.  China (and India) have(s) the most to lose if the Middle East Oil production halts and we have China on the ropes, too.

Trump holds all the cards that matter right now and imho, knows what he is doing and knows how to play them.  He is a proven multi-tasker.  Besides, he is all we have and if people want to keep the world from blowing up, they better start to get behind him and show a united face behind him to the rest of the world right now.  We have never been closer to setting things right in the world than we are right now.  And that does not mean that the USA is going to take over the world.  It means that everyone else is going to have to pull their own weight for the first time since WW II and start carrying their own water.  Obama's / Hillary's / the democrat's goal is to make and keep the USA the water boy / Sugar Daddy of the world, not the leader of the free world. This is what MAGA is really all about.

Pardon my bluntness, but its late and I'm tired.  I hope I made some sense to you and maybe helped inspire a little optimism.  Pollyanna is not one of my hero's ...

Peace, out.

You are both right.

The Mid-East has a major impact, yes.  It simply has less impact than before.  Russian production growth and growing US shale oil production saw to that.

I expect a relatively short-lived price spike assuming the upgrading complex can be back up and running in a few months.  Markets are relatively well supplied, spare capacity is healthy, the global economy is slowing and so is the aggregate demand for oil.

Now, if President Trump would like to make happy those of us financially levered to the price of oil, please invade Iran and occupy it.  The Israelis will love you!   The Saudis will love you!   

In response, Iran will attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz to shipping traffic thus hemming off ~1/3 of global production.   It is the only serious card Iran possesses.    Regardless, oil & gas companies will love you Mr. President!

A US military strike on Iran would definitely impact oil prices.  That would  more than pull oil companies out of the current share price purgatory they occupy.    

Just think of the popular perception.....   US$80 to US$100/bbl Brent Crude. ~$4 to $5+/gallon at the pumps.  (notionally)  I am not sure that most American voters will be too pleased. 

 kurtster wrote:

Brent oil, the global benchmark, jumped more than 19% when markets opened Monday. In dollar terms, the nearly $12 surge is the biggest intraday rise since trading began in 1988.

It may be short-lived, but it still qualifies as "a major impact on oil prices", ergo...

 R_P wrote: 
I checked the market open on Bloomberg @ 6pm ET and WTI was up only $5 to $59 (less than 10%) from Friday's close.  I just looked again @ 11.30pm ET and it is unchanged since the market opened.  Oil jumped more when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989.  I was on the turnpike when that happened.  I got a call Friday night and was told to raise the price 10¢ per gallon on Saturday and another 10¢ on Sunday and the damn thing still had not stopped moving on the rocks when I got that call.  The NYRBOB harbor price of gas has only gone up 15¢ since Friday's close to $1.70 per gallon and this is in 2019 $'s.  We already hit $60 earlier this summer just based on normal supply fluctuations.  I look at  commodities prices and currency prices many times per day.

So yeah, my statement stands.

 kurtster wrote:
 
I don't recall you being so forgiving during the last presidency. Why the change of heart?  

 kurtster wrote:

 Steely_D wrote:
 
I grew up in southern Ontario.  More so than other parts of English Canada, in my experience, young males in southern Ontario of northern European stock will 'bond' by copiously insulting each other.   What is it?  Heterosexual male macho intimacy?  You tell me.

It is not a behaviour that necessarily translates well in the rest of the country and certainly not in the rest of the world.

I suspect that Trump is behaving on the international scene just like he did in New York among friends and business acquaintances he would like to become 'friends'.   (Does a guy like Trump have 'real friends' outside of immediate family members?  That is another discussion.) 

 kurtster wrote:
 

The President deserves intense scrutiny, especially his mental state. And, if it's found wanting, the good of the nation requires that we're aware. Whataboutism (OK let's look at the other candidates) doesn't apply here.

It's a good time to remember that Reagan's diminished capacity was hidden from the country.

Now imagine it's not Reagan and it was Clinton that was developing Alzheimer's.
If Bill Clinton, during his presidency, were losing his memory and his ability to think clearly, should we have been aware? Should he have continued to lead the nation?

Leave the partisan stuff aside. If Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Obama, or Trump are losing their mental capabilities while in office (from organic or psychological causes) then what should happen?

FWIW, I don't believe Trump has psych issues as much as something organic. Something is causing him to have speech problems, obviously, and it implies something about his ability to process information as well. (Saying that Melania has a son. "Where's my favorite dictator?!?" etc - they don't strike me as someone who just "refuses to play the game because he's a brilliant businessman" but as something that interferes with his ability to not behave like someone's addled grandpa.)

‘Emperor has no Clothes:’ Trump asked of Egypt’s al-Sisi, ‘Where’s my Favorite Dictator?’

 westslope wrote:
 
Yes, more spray-tanning product (to fill the nooks and crannies) during his weekend golf outings, but since he owns the joint, it's a write-off (presentation business expense likely logged at several times the nominal cost)... 

 R_P wrote:
 

Would not high blood pressure contribute to a reddish cast?    Those gorgeous man breasts and delicious shapely hips typically come at a cost.

 aflanigan wrote: 
+1  

Theoretically, being POTUS is the toughest job in the world.  The events of the day dictate the nature of the job more than the person holding the job.

We are all the sum of our experiences and the baggage we accumulate during our journey through life.  Some people keep things in check better than others and in some cases people just have bad days.  No one is immune from having a bad day.  And when being scrutinized so closely, it is easy to turn a good day into a bad day at the drop of a hat, especially when so many are working as hard as they can to make sure you have a bad day ...

 Coaxial wrote:
 

Related: Pat McCrory was on Meet the Press and he opined that the 10 Dems did not appear “presidential” during Thursday’s debate. He reasoned that their failure to present themselves as presidential would defang that issue as to Trump. Seriously.

 Coaxial wrote:
 
Perhaps it is not so much that his mental state is diminished; he may have had psychiatric pathologies of one sort or another most of his life.  Being president brings a level of scrutiny and  unwanted attention, which may make it much harder for him to conceal his dysfunction.    The unaccustomed close scrutiny could also aggravate things, I imagine.

 kurtster wrote:  Please, Kurt, you have to see that his mental state has diminished, please admit that, or all else is superfluous because we have no baseline for discussion. 

I keep seeing posts about Trump's so called mental state that violate the spirit and intent of the Goldwater Rule.

Perhaps it is time to openly speculate about the mental state of his democratic opponents.  If so, we should start with the three front runners to be fair.

How about Biden and Warren being pathological liars ?  Or are they suffering from the onset of dementia ?  Easy to make the case for both.  Bernie is just a garden variety liar.  But he also has his own issues.

Trump is not well

FTA:

Donald Trump’s disordered personality—his unhealthy patterns of thinking, functioning, and behaving—has become the defining characteristic of his presidency. It manifests itself in multiple ways: his extreme narcissism; his addiction to lying about things large and small, including his finances and bullying and silencing those who could expose them; his detachment from reality, including denying things he said even when there is video evidence to the contrary; his affinity for conspiracy theories; his demand for total loyalty from others while showing none to others; and his self-aggrandizement and petty cheating.

It manifests itself in Trump’s impulsiveness and vindictiveness; his craving for adulation; his misogyny, predatory sexual behavior, and sexualization of his daughters; his open admiration for brutal dictators; his remorselessness; and his lack of empathy and sympathy, including attacking a family whose son died while fighting for this country, mocking a reporter with a disability, and ridiculing a former POW.

Trump blamed energy-saving bulbs for making him look orange. Experts say probably not.

On previous occasions, the president’s distinctive complexion has been framed by his aides as a sign of health. In a Times article that ran in the deep of winter this year, a senior administration official said that Trump’s orange skin tone was the result of “good genes.”

When Hollywood Warned Us About Leaders Like Trump  (Putin's pliant puppet)

Trump explains his distinctive orange hue: it's the lightbulbs