Fueling the Concept
Commentator Sever Plocker analyzes the claim that Trump avoided striking Iran due to fears of rising oil prices. He argues the data doesn't support this: a barrel of oil costs $85-90, but historically it has traded higher relative to today's prices. The US economy is stable, inflation has dropped to 3.5%, and average wages are high. The real danger is the budget deficit. Trump is maneuvering, and the next strike will come as a surprise.
Commentator Sever Plocker attacks the prevailing thesis that President Trump is refraining from a military strike on Iran due to fears of a barrel of oil rising to $100. He claims the data doesn't support this: the price of oil for immediate delivery stands at $85-90, but in January 2014 a barrel traded at $100, which is about $140 in current terms, and in autumn 2018 at $70 (about $100 today) – and the world didn't collapse. Moreover, the US today is a leading oil exporter and benefits from high prices. The American economy is stable: annual inflation has dropped to 3.5%, the labor market is tight, and the average wage exceeds $7,000. The real danger is the budget deficit of 6% of GDP, a legacy of budget expansions without taxation. Plocker notes that in polls only 4% of Americans are interested in foreign policy, and the impact of the economy on voting is limited. He explains that oil production in the Gulf costs about $10 per barrel, and the difference is a tax that the sheikhs collect. Finally, he quotes Sun Tzu on deception in war, and claims that Trump's statements about an imminent strike are deception, and the next blow will come as a surprise.