• eskimofry@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7010·
    2 years ago

    Another convenient excuse for the hand of the free market to limit supply and jack up prices even further…

    • maniacal_gaff@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5016·
      2 years ago

      I mean, if buttholes are shooting missiles at boats, I think we’re beyond “convenient excuses.” Do you want to captain a ship through there by chance?

      • hark@lemmy.worldEnglish
        342·
        2 years ago

        Any legitimate situation will be taken to gouge prices far beyond their actual additional costs. So yes, it is a convenient excuse.

        • theneverfox@pawb.socialEnglish
          5·
          2 years ago

          This is the truth. We’re now in a place where prices only ratchet up… All they need is a global event, and like beats of a drum, all of the megacorps raise prices in sync

          No collusion, no competition, only prices go up

          • Lols [they/them]@lemm.eeEnglish
            64·
            2 years ago

            sounds like they need to put some pep in their step stopping the ongoing genocide then

              • Lols [they/them]@lemm.eeEnglish
                61·
                2 years ago

                man i wish there were some way to test that theory

                maybe we could do sort of a ‘stopping the ongoing genocide’ test run, see how they respond

                and then keep it going indefinitely because genocide is bad

              • sudo@programming.devEnglish
                42·
                2 years ago

                They flew in with a Palestinian flag on their helicopter. Their own flag say’s death to Israel and America; the nations doing the genocide and sponsoring the genocide. And all of this is after they just survived a genocide at the hands of the Saudi’s with US bombs and went on to win the war.

                Maybe, just maybe, they mean what they say.

              • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldBannedEnglish
                56·
                2 years ago

                Why would they attack international shipping if not to stop genocide?

                There is no reason for them to do this aside from being the only people with enough morals to step up against Genocide Joe.

        • Murvel@lemm.eeEnglish
          189·
          2 years ago

          They’re firing fucking rockets at them, isn’t that bad enough?

  • crystalmerchant@lemmy.worldEnglish
    45·
    2 years ago

    And corporations will certainly not use this convenient excuse to jack up their prices immediately, then keep them there after the crisis passes, right? Right?

    • cultsuperstar@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      2 years ago

      They’re real good at raising prices. Not good at lowering them. Also good at claiming record profits every year while cutting workforces.

      • Goferking0@ttrpg.networkEnglish
        2·
        2 years ago

        While blaming everything else for why they are cutting the workforce to increase profits even higher

    • Skeezix@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      The actual cost hit due to the Houthis was 1.7%

  • nicetriangle@kbin.social
    354·
    2 years ago

    Yeah this isn’t gonna go on much longer without a military response, which I am guessing is the plan. Keep spreading the US and allied countries’ military attention thinner and thinner.

    • ashar@infosec.pubEnglish
      4312·
      2 years ago

      the other option is to comply with the Houthi demands that the starvation of the people of Gaza be ended and supplies be allowed in accordance with the International Laws

      • Kbobabob@lemmy.worldEnglish
        207·
        2 years ago

        Even if America succeeds in mobilising the entire world, our military operations will not stop … no matter the sacrifices it costs us,” Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a senior Houthi official, said…

        Some of you will die but that’s a risk I’m willing to take.

        • Psychodelic@lemmy.worldEnglish
          92·
          2 years ago

          I mean, I think they’d call that an honorable death in some circles.

          Don’t they see the US as basically the Empire?

          • Jonna@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            2 years ago

            George Lucas certainly did. The Vietnam War was part of the inspiration for Star Wars.

          • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.worldEnglish
            43·
            2 years ago

            I see the level of political discourse in this sub has risen to the level of :checks notes: Star Wars references.

      • rayyy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        103·
        2 years ago

        No doubt that is why there have been muted responses to attacks - it would look really bad to the world.

    • homura1650@lemm.eeEnglish
      6·
      2 years ago

      Operation Prosperity Guardian is already underway. Unfourtuantly, modern drone technology tilts the scales in favor of the attacker in this sort of situation relative to where it was a decade ago; and commercial shipping companies are not in the bussiness of shipping through active combat zones.

    • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      84·
      2 years ago

      NATO has so many resources, it’s the entire purpose of NATO.

      Saying the resources are being spread thinner is a undebatable fact but I would say not every military/country in NATO had even CLOSE to 100% of people working on Ukraine before Israel piped up.

      NATO can handle a lot more of this shit

    • hark@lemmy.worldEnglish
      53·
      2 years ago

      They did a good job of spreading themselves thin. Gotta justify that $800+ billion spending.

      • nbafantest@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        2 years ago

        Guaranteeing free movement is one of the reasons we have a large military.

    • Patius@lemmy.world
      English
      154·
      2 years ago

      Yeah, or the US just invades Yemen with global support, triggering the regional crisis Iran wanted.

      None of the regional powers actually care about Palestine outside of using it as a convenient political excuse.

      • sudo@programming.devEnglish
        38·
        2 years ago

        The US will lose to the Houthis faster than they did to the Taliban. The Houthis are far better soldiers than the Taliban an have already been dodging US made bombs for a decade.

        But hey, maybe it’ll stabilize Red Sea trade long enough for the Zionists to complete their genocide.

        • guacupado@lemmy.worldEnglish
          71·
          2 years ago

          There won’t be any goal to police Yemen afterward, which is where the US “lost” (and I’m using that word loosely).

          • sudo@programming.devEnglish
            24·
            2 years ago

            What’s so loose about surrendering Afghanistan back to the Taliban?

            So what will the goal be in Yemen theb? Just bomb them enough that they can’t threaten shipping? The Saudi’s bombed them for almost a decade. Or are we gonna put “boots on the ground” and occupy Yemen until Israel is done with its genocide? I dont think thats going to work well. Maybe we’ll sponsor the Islamic State to do it for us?

    • CherenkovBlue@iusearchlinux.fyiEnglish
      2313·
      2 years ago

      The Houthis do this because Iran tells them to. WTF. Can’t believe you’re white-knighting this.

      Edit: frfr

      • sudo@programming.devEnglish
        47·
        2 years ago

        Maybe the Houthi’s just take their slogan literally and have their own motivations? Everyone’s got to be a puppet though. Is Israel doing a genocide because the US told them to?

    • nbafantest@lemmy.worldEnglish
      114·
      2 years ago

      Two generations are about to learn why America has such a large Navy

  • Lightsong@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    2 years ago

    I wonder if ships will face issue caused by Cape Horn since they’ll have to go by that route.

    • jantin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      81·
      2 years ago

      Care to elaborate why is this relevant?

      • sturlabragason@lemmy.worldEnglish
        101·
        2 years ago

        The book goes into some detail why and how the deteriorating global situation will start affecting global shipping and cascading into an array of economic crap scenarios.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.worldEnglish
        82·
        2 years ago

        The book is about the US backing off from protecting global trade and what happens afterword. Such is the core thing holding up our current globalized trading system.

        It isn’t about everyone dying or some shit (“Doomerism”), it is about geopolitics.

      • aew360@lemm.eeEnglish
        83·
        2 years ago

        You should read it. Pretty much no one understands how the current state of international affairs has been maintained by global trade. The U.S. Navy protects all global trade. Not just trade to and from the U.S., but obviously it’s not a popular domestic position and it doesn’t make much sense for the U.S. to continue anyway. There’s winners and losers, but mostly losers

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldBannedEnglish
          512·
          2 years ago

          What a dumb take. American interventionism exists to rob countries of oil, destabilize them, and make sure they cannot surpass Americ in power.

          The entire reason the middle east is chaos right now is because of America. israel is a prime example. A Nazi state that only exists because of America so they can control the region, and it creates chaos and wars.

          America isn’t doing jack shit for stability. If they wanted stability they would stop the Genocide instead of trying to pick fights with everyone to protect israel.

          • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.worldEnglish
            32·
            2 years ago

            The US is now a net exporter of crude, petrochemicals and LNG. We don’t need the Middle East, in fact they are just competitors. But our allies desperately need those energy sources.

            The US is currently in the middle of the largest industrial build out in history in N.A. At the end of it we will produce most of what we need locally. Because of our demographics N.A. has the largest consumer market in the world. Most of what we produce is consumed locally. We export food staples and high end technical products. We don’t need foreign markets… but they need us.

            With all of the disruptions that global climate change is going to bring in ten to fifteen years, when N.A. is even more self sufficient than it is now, do you think the US will continue to subsidize the world’s economy? Why would we continue guaranteeing freedom of the seas in areas where we have no interest?

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldBannedEnglish
              23·
              2 years ago

              America wants to couple oil to the collar and in the past forced everyone to do so. Any leader that wanted to be paid in gold got killed.

              Because everyone needs energy, everyone is forced to trade in dollars. And you know what America can do? Print those dollarydoos.

              So they are not just making sure their monopoly is stable but also that they have an infinite money hack by devaluing the global currency that everyone is forced to trade in.

          • aew360@lemm.eeEnglish
            47·
            2 years ago

            Israel only exists because of Nazis, but you can go ahead and call them Nazis. The irony is clearly not lost on you.

            There has not been a world war since the U.S. has been upholding the international order that has seen countries like China, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and many others experience massive economic gains.

            The times America has been engaged in conflict since WW2 ended have so much propaganda draped over them that people forget who invaded who first. The North Koreans invaded South Korea to begin the Korean War. The North Vietnamese invaded South Vietnam to begin the Vietnam war. The Iraqis invaded Kuwait to begin Operation Desert Storm. The Serbs tried to genocide the Albanians in Kosovo to begin NATO intervention in the Balkans. The one time the U.S. was totally in the wrong was when Bush lied about Iraq being involved in 9/11, which was completely untrue.

            You can have your opinions, but it doesn’t reflect reality. And when the U.S. Navy stops ensuring the free flow of goods, the countries that the U.S. is hurting according to you will be begging us to return the world to the previous order.

            Of course, idiots Ike yourself will find a way to blame the CIA for whatever happens because it’s just gotta always be the US’s fault.

            • mightyfoolish@lemmy.worldEnglish
              51·
              2 years ago

              The world is literally a mess right now. How you define “stable” is literally in terms of your own day to day affairs.

              • aew360@lemm.eeEnglish
                22·
                2 years ago

                Lmao. Just give it ten years and we can have that conversation.

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldBannedEnglish
              73·
              2 years ago

              Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq not 9/11. The rest of your comments are all bullshit too but when you claim that israeli Nazis have been defending themselves into stealing all Palestinian land and murdering little children I guess you need some insane alternate history book for your world view to make sense.

              • aew360@lemm.eeEnglish
                31·
                2 years ago

                Nope, you’re wrong. He started it all with a connection to 9/11. Then they shifted to 9/11 because US intelligence refused to corroborate his lies. But he made those statements as facts. Dude just wanted to finish what his dad didn’t back in the early 90s

                • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldBannedEnglish
                  32·
                  2 years ago

                  Actually you’re right. My bad. I didn’t know that he lied about “Iraq doing 9/11 too” . And afterwards he lied about the WMD’s too. He was just making up tonnes of lies and finding any reason to invade Iraq and overthrow their government to steal oil.

                  And America got away with it of course.

                  I’m not entirely sure how this helps your point of America not being the bad actor destabilizing the region though. If anything it makes it even worse. They’re just lying about everything and killing everyone to steal all their things.

            • sudo@programming.devEnglish
              3·
              2 years ago

              Vietnam was justified

              The absolute historical ignorance Americans put themselves through to preserve the patriotism. You really gotta shove your head deep into the sand to have never gotten a history lesson on Vietnam.

              • aew360@lemm.eeEnglish
                22·
                2 years ago

                Who invaded who in Vietnam? South Vietnam was invaded first. Thats kind what spurred US involvement. Your head is so far up some Russian trolls ass that you forgot history

                • sudo@programming.devEnglish
                  3·
                  2 years ago

                  The US was had troops in South Vietnam since it was founded. It was a rump French puppet state with incredibly corrupt catholic government that was persecuting the Buddhist minorities. The north was made up of the national forces that kicked the French out. They had every right to overthrow the southern government.

                  This isnt russian troll position. Americans were saying this enmasse the start of the Vietnam war. American protestors died to stop that war. Draftees killed their officers frequently over it. Read anything about it.

                • sudo@programming.devEnglish
                  2·
                  2 years ago

                  Like do you think the Confederates were justified because the Union invaded them?

      • capital@lemmy.worldEnglish
        24·
        2 years ago

        What parts did you find unconvincing?

        You read it, right?

        • pewter@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          2 years ago

          They linked a Wikipedia article for a whole book. We can read the summary section, but presumably it would be better to have read the whole book.

          Wouldn’t a comment where they mention what applies in this specific situation make more sense than just a link for a book with a title that’s meant to rile people up?

          • capital@lemmy.worldEnglish
            32·
            2 years ago

            Those that have read it would know there’s a whole section on the US’ protection of world trade and what could happen if it stopped.

            Those that have read it would know exactly what it meant to link that book in a thread like this one.