In the current political landscape, we’re seeing artificial diplomatic maneuvers designed to suppress oil prices, especially in the lead-up to elections. By crafting temporary agreements, delaying conflicts, or reaching tentative accords, politicians create a short-term stability that projects economic control. This is especially evident in actions aimed at stabilising oil prices, which, in turn, influence everything from inflation to consumer confidence, making it appear as though a more affordable future is on the horizon. But this engineered stability misleads the public, particularly lower-income families who are most affected by rising energy costs.

@elonmusk

These artificial suppressions don't reflect genuine market forces and are unsustainable in the long run. The market’s fundamentals—supply, demand, production capacities, and geopolitical tensions—will eventually reassert themselves, causing prices to spike once the election season passes and the need for public appeasement diminishes. It raises the question: should we accept policies that rely on manipulating market realities for short-term political gain, especially when the economic fallout ultimately impacts the very citizens these actions claim to support?

Given this, I’m curious about the policy stance from the Trump side on this type of intervention. Will there be a departure from the tactic of using temporary diplomatic measures to influence prices, or will there be a push for a more transparent approach that respects the realities of the market?

Can we expect policy that addresses the root causes of energy volatility, rather than leaning on diplomatic theatrics that ultimately erode public trust?

@realDonaldTrump

S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Oct 31, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1851875497015476513?t=q9ZH5x1Q0sToEZLz-yzUrA&s=19

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/1772