Why Does Oil Fluctuate Just On The Whims And Wishes Of Trump?

Not within our lifetime though.

I don’t think that mitigation against accumulation will happen though.

I think there is a huge chance of inevitability about it, because capital is growing faster than economic growth, with the tax system continuing to favour capital over income from labour, assets continue to generate more than income from labour, yes I can see violence erupting if the consequences are too bad for 90% of the population.

mae13

As of this morning (30/04/2026) oil has jumped to $125 a barrel because the White House says the Iran blockade, by America, may last for months.

But by this time tomorrow there will probably be a diktat from HRH Donald saying the opposite. And the stock markets will be on the move again.

Who gives him this unstoppable power?

In his first term Trump was restrained to a certain extent by advisors. This time he’s surrounded himself with yes men and sycophants. He has used his dictatorial powers to override the judiciary, bypass Congress, and waged a campaign of intimidation against anyone or any institution that opposes or displeases him. The only hope is that the Republicans suffer badly in the mid-terms although Trump is already making moves to get voting boundaries altered in his favour.

Whitewavemark2

MaizieD

Problem is, though, that whenever anyone proposes to do something about the accumulation or accumulating of excessive wealth, with its impoverishing effect on everyone else, there is a rush to defend the wealthy on the grounds that we need the crumbs they leave us...

Yes, this accumulation is as far as I can see inevitable. What the final outcome will be is anyone’s guess.

It’s only inevitable if no-one has the courage to check them. Better progressive taxation and tighter market regulation could do a lot to reduce accumulation.

Also, ignoring their threats of leaving the country and the introduction of capital controls might do some work 🤔

The alternative could be a bloody revolution (see 18th C France and early 20th C Russia) There certainly seems to be a considerable number of deprived people around who wouldn’t mind a bit of violence… 🫢

Greedy oil giants are creaming off the profits while us daft buggars are letting them.

Nanna. Trump didn’t get involved in this war, as much as started the damn thing. He’s a billionaire, as are some of his children and they will not be affected at all

keepingquiet

O h , p l e a s e !
.

Trump is a player and knows all the other Yankee players..Examples rich bankers and all the other Worlds ruling elites

They can never have enough power and money and this Hormuz skirmish is their latest move.



I

Borrowing is peanuts in the scheme of things.

The wealthy will control the media in democratic states, regardless which government is in power, the use of AI will increase the influence.
The only way to counter that is to generate enough resources at home and not to borrow, borrowing is a quick easy way to get more votes for a government but the UK has done too much for too long.

MaizieD

Problem is, though, that whenever anyone proposes to do something about the accumulation or accumulating of excessive wealth, with its impoverishing effect on everyone else, there is a rush to defend the wealthy on the grounds that we need the crumbs they leave us...

Yes, this accumulation is as far as I can see inevitable. What the final outcome will be is anyone’s guess.

Problem is, though, that whenever anyone proposes to do something about the accumulation or accumulating of excessive wealth, with its impoverishing effect on everyone else, there is a rush to defend the wealthy on the grounds that we need the crumbs they leave us...

What I do think is that the greater the concentration of wealth in the hands of individuals, the more poverty and misery there is likely to be, unless the world somehow takes steps to mitigate against it, but I’m sure that this will never happen.

Individual countries apart from the huge superpowers (and even then it is questionable) simply do not have sufficient economic or state clout, which is why it is sensible for countries to work together to try to prevent this vast accumulation.

Whitewavemark2

Indeed. I think it is because it feels as if it was ever thus, and people feel so powerless.

In fact it is as many predicted that wealth is becoming more and more concentrated, - a characteristic, that is inevitable in a liberal market economy.

Are we returning to a different type of feudalism?, where the few that control the money are dictating our future, they don't own land or property but do control the finance that enables the economy. The more we borrow the more control they have

Indeed. I think it is because it feels as if it was ever thus, and people feel so powerless.

In fact it is as many predicted that wealth is becoming more and more concentrated, - a characteristic, that is inevitable in a liberal market economy.

But I think I have deviated too far from the OP so will stop now

The OP was a question about a market. A market which will not only make some individuals even more wealthy but will have devastating consequences for much of the global population.

I do find it odd that shoulder shrugging and indifference is a common reaction to the inequality and greed which characterises many global societies.

Hmm.

Well I don’t want to get bogged down in this, but what I will say is that a market is not just about the exchange of goods, but the way they are produced, the labour by which they are produced and who owns the means of production and the power to oversee this.

So it is never so simple as buying and selling.

The individuals experience of the market place will be very different within each of the types of economic system. But there has never been a free market, there has always (and for very good reasons) been rules/regs governing them.

But I think I have deviated too far from the OP so will stop now .

Whitewavemark2

Just as aside.

What we are talking about is a particular economic system - capitalism. .

This has only existed for maybe a couple of centuries, perhaps slightly more. Before that there was feudalism, slave-based economies or mercantilism to describe a few.

I don't think we are talking about capitalism specifically.

The original reference was to free markets and it was pointed out that they have existed for hundreds of years. whatever form of economy existed the markets themselves were free and mostly unregulated.

One could object that entry to the markets was sometimes controlled, such as in the mediaeval guild system, but the markets themselves were not. And, a feature of free markets is that they have enabled great wealth and power for a few and poverty for a great many.

There seems to be a feeling that market dominance and the acquisition of wealth is an historic norm that we have to live with. Almost that it is foolish to make any attempt to promote a more equable system. I question this...

Whitewavemark2

Just as aside.

What we are talking about is a particular economic system - capitalism. .

This has only existed for maybe a couple of centuries, perhaps slightly more. Before that there was feudalism, slave-based economies or mercantilism to describe a few.

There is an alternative, state controlled capitalism where the government controls everything, anyone is allowed to make money as long as the obey government policy. Businesses can ignore any copyright and the government subsidizes the export trade.

But there is no freedom of speech and large security forces make sure the population obeys.

Just as aside.

What we are talking about is a particular economic system - capitalism. .

This has only existed for maybe a couple of centuries, perhaps slightly more. Before that there was feudalism, slave-based economies or mercantilism to describe a few.

MaizieD

^Free market in modern economic terms simply describes a capitalist economy with minimum government interference.^

How dies that differ from laissez faire?

It differs in degree.

Laissez faire exponents argue that markets can only work effectively if they are totally free from government interference.

Well, this of course has never existed, except perhaps in the very early days during the industrial revolution and capital.

The free market describes, trade with the minimum of government interference. There is an acceptance that stuff such as controlling the quality etc - like no chalk in flour, not too old. Safety etc, But an absolute minimum.

Personally I’m with those who see government as one arm of the economy. Although I accept that this is becoming more difficult with the stuff like massive power from billionaires etc.

BlessedArt

SueDonim

I’ve read several times that there’s a lot of insider trading going on, people making money out of misery.

100%.

There is insider trading but currently they don't need it because the oil market is volatile, guessing what Trump will do next is not difficult, judging when other traders will change sentiment is harder.

butterandjam

his billionaire pals who make a fortune trading Oil stocks as the market rises and falls.

Trump is all about making money for himself at any cost to his own country.

At any cost to his country, at any cost to humanity. Even before he started murdering Iranian school girls, his administration was clustering stock sales and buys in the US around major economic decisions. They are very open about it. War is a major money maker for the lowest rungs of humanity and Trump is among the lowest of them.

These people are crooks, pure and simple. The more we work to end our dependence on these so called 'free' markets the better.

The word 'free' is a misnomer because someone always has to pay, and it is usually the poor.

What a shabby world we have created for our grandchildren...

SueDonim

I’ve read several times that there’s a lot of insider trading going on, people making money out of misery.

100%.