You bring up a good point that isn't addressed very well. There's still less refined oil being produced that is demanded. In this case, its for Russia. I suppose this demand is partially reduced as Russia will try to minimize unnecessary refined oil usage (maybe eventually increasing local prices to discourage unnecessary use), but even then I still feel their reduced refining capabilities should have an impact on prices.
I suppose that other refineries could pick up the slack, but I'm uncertain whether that really makes sense for them, and there's not an easy way to countries against Russia can reduce their own usage of refined oil in the near term.
Ultimately, time well tell whether these attacks are having a strong impact on global refined oil.
EDIT: one thing that they do mention, that counteracts my point above is the fact that Russia exporting additional unrefined oil, that would mean unrefined oil pricing would decrease, which could counteract the reduction in production of refined oil.
The Indicator by Planet Money from NPR: they talk about what they feel are important indicators for the current economy, and expand on various economic topics in ways that I think anybody can understand, and are rather short.
The 1A from NPR: they talk about various topics that are affecting the US. They like to get people to chime in with their views, and have some experts on the topics to discuss context and how certain groups are or aren't pushing for changes. Its usually close to an hour long, and not all topics interest me, but they do talk about fake news, presidential elections, housing, mental health etc.
Planet Money from NPR: longer form discussions of economics, somewhat similar to the Indicator, but not as short form and they really expand on economic stories that I think are really interesting. Some topics include how, many, random people, can relatively accurately determine the weight of a cow (and how this defines the economy), the real estate trail that recently occurred and its background.
Except the article, that you are currently commenting on, indicates the exact opposite. Flouridated water decreases the chances of cavities as noted by communities studied, some without flouridated water and others with it.
I feel this takes some of the energy from the title. Better to have some ex Republicans supporting Biden rather than none of them, but I definitely would have wished it was someone actively in office.
Great quote from Duncan though:
Unlike Trump, I’ve belonged to the GOP my entire life. This November, I am voting for a decent person I disagree with on policy over a criminal defendant without a moral compass
But doesn't this article also say that some Jewish people liked the idea of being near "their" holy land? I guess what I'm saying, wasn't this an option convenient for both sides? Britain doesn't want a lot/any Jewish people, but also, many Jewish people want to have their own land in current day Israel. Britain's reasons are antisemitic, but they also didn't force Jewish people to live in current day Israel.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Is this actually is a good use of the ATACMS? I mean 100 troop isn't nothing, but oil refineries or, plane hangers, or tank garages, I think would be better suited for their use. Anybody have additional information on their usage?
Basically no real possible candidate ran against Biden in the primary because the Democratic party feels like supporting the incumbent is better for the party then trying to run against them. The incumbent president has a high chance of winning a reelection, historically speaking. Notably, trump is the last President to lose his presidential reelection campaign, before him its been like 20+ years.
idk, I disagree that /r/TheDonald's existence was what sparked MAGA. Russia had such a heavy hand in the creation and support of MAGA that they would have found another place to start the fire. TheDonald was just the largest pile of kindle available... with many more around it. I could imagine they would have focused even harder on facebook, or news coverage or whatever else.
Regardless, I do agree with the rest of your point that TheDonald had a huge influence on MAGA
Do you think California is not spending any money homelessness? 17.5 billion dollars in 4 years is nothing to scoff at. This includes money spent on housing, as well as temporary housing and appropriate services. So you're right in that Newsom can invest public funds to helping homeless in a provable way, but he has actually done that.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/us/california-homeless-spending/index.html
Until we get our housing shortage sorted out (something that will take years maybe even decades to sort out, even if Newsom was a god king and made the decision to prioritize this issue over all others), we will continue to have this housing and by extension unhoused issue. Homelessness has been increasing throughout the country (source) and with a big contributions being from a shortage of housing built. States should be working on creating new housing(as several states, including California are doing), but the Federal government should be doing what they can to support the states in resolving this issue.
If hypothetically he could solve the housing crisis overnight, why wouldn't he? He's obviously got his sights on the presidency, and being able to resolve the housing crisis in one of the largest states is an easy way to get a lot of positive attention. He could solve the housing crisis over night, then for the next 4 years (trump's/Biden's presidency) he can take time to resolve other problems and pad his resume even more.
Its already happening, as the article indicates... this isn't something that changes over night. We've taking decades to dig ourselves into this hole, it will take some years to dig us out.
In this case, there are a lot of people with a vested interest in keeping their [perceived to be] convenient car-oriented lifestyle, but who may have been feeling twinges of guilt and doubt about it lately because of all the talk about climate change and whatnot
No. This is literally about how the likelihood of death for other drivers or pedestrians from car collisions is higher because of these larger vehicles. This is not about the tangential argument that you're trying to inject. Not everybody ingests media from Fuck cars, not just bikes, and citynerd.
No, many people probably don't feel any twinges of guilt or doubt about their car oriented lifestyle, because not everyone is even aware of the alternative in the US.
You bring up a good point that isn't addressed very well. There's still less refined oil being produced that is demanded. In this case, its for Russia. I suppose this demand is partially reduced as Russia will try to minimize unnecessary refined oil usage (maybe eventually increasing local prices to discourage unnecessary use), but even then I still feel their reduced refining capabilities should have an impact on prices.
I suppose that other refineries could pick up the slack, but I'm uncertain whether that really makes sense for them, and there's not an easy way to countries against Russia can reduce their own usage of refined oil in the near term.
Ultimately, time well tell whether these attacks are having a strong impact on global refined oil.
EDIT: one thing that they do mention, that counteracts my point above is the fact that Russia exporting additional unrefined oil, that would mean unrefined oil pricing would decrease, which could counteract the reduction in production of refined oil.