September 21, 2018

"We unravel the Russian plot to subvert the 2016 election."

Teaser on the front page at nytimes.com for a big NYT article that I cannot bring myself to read. I've glanced at it, seen the diagrams that make it seem as though there are hundreds of data points and the NYT has arranged them to tell a story.

To "unravel" is "To cause to be no longer ravelled, tangled, or intertwined, to disentangle; to unweave or undo (a fabric, esp. a knitted one)" (OED).

To want to read that article, I would need to believe the NYT is going to unravel something that I already see as terribly important and horribly tangled, so that what looks like a long, complicated article seems to offer to helpfully simplify things for me.

But I don't feel that way, and I'm afraid their aim is to create the impression of hopeless entanglement, not to rescue me from a place where I'm currently struggling.

Can't I just wait for Mueller to lay it all out for me? If there really was "a horrible Russian plot to subvert the 2016 election," it's an emergency, but it's going on 2 years that Mueller's been mulling it over. If Mueller can be so leisurely, I can wait for Mueller. Sorry I'm not more concerned about "the Russian plot" — I would be if I thought Mueller were part of it.

ADDED: Look at the paranoia-inducing Putin pic they've got on the front page:



Putinoia.

Reminds me of the title sequence from "Vertigo":

93 comments:

AustinRoth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AustinRoth said...

The Russians did exactly what they set out to do - harm our faith in the election process. They did not care about nor help any specific candidate. It was all a disinformation campaign.

traditionalguy said...

The NYT is desperate to create an impression that their totally disproven Big Lie was right all along. You almost feel sorry for them and for the continual display of depressed faces on CNN and MSNBC's teams of fabulists. No one believes them except Hollywood actors and Bagdad Bob types living off the many rich DC fiefdoms.

Чикелит said...

Thank you for giving us the grist of Mueller’s story.

Fernandistein said...

In The Era of Trump's America the NYT plot to subvert the 2016 election didn't work so good.

Kevin said...

Fish food.

gg6 said...

The NYT 'piece' is classic Garbage In-Garbage Out. But your last line in your post is brilliant: " I'm not more concerned about "the Russian plot" — I would be if I thought Mueller were part of it."....Ha, ha!, that's great; let's see you unravel THAT new thread NYT!!

exhelodrvr1 said...

A reminder that, prior to the election, the Demos shut down the investigation into Russian interference

EDH said...

The other part of the headline: "Suspected spies and outreach Trump campaign associates".

So it's gone from "collusion with" to "outreach by" Russians?

How many of those "suspected spies" doing "outreach" to Trump campaign associates were working for the Deep State to compromise and defeat Trump?

Birkel said...

Strzok and Page texts reveal the FBI did not agree with Brennan's partisan and self-serving assessment from the CIA.
But the political hit job persists.

Robert Cook said...

"The Russians did exactly what they set out to do - harm our faith in the election process. They did not care about nor help any specific candidate. It was all a disinformation campaign."

We don't need the Russians to "harm our faith in the election process." What have they done that harmed our faith in the election process? And, what does it even matter if the "election process" is left inviolable. The process can still only elect those who can afford to run, and they are funded by the wealthy who want returns on their investment. Money is the great destroyer of our representative republic, which is hardly "representative" anymore, if by that is meant that our representatives serve the people's needs. "Our" representatives serve those who pay to get them in office.

Robert Cook said...

For what it's worth, Bob Woodward has stated that, in researching his book FEAR, he tried hard to find any evidence of collusion between the Russians and Trump's people, and he could find nothing. Nothing at all.

Levi Starks said...

Russia’s effort was all about point shaving. They couldn’t care less about who won, They believed (like all the world) that Trump didn’t have a chance, and were certainly as surprised as everyone else that he won. A close election = US political turmoil. That Trump did win, and the Democratic response in particular must seem to them to be unbelievably good luck.

DougWeber said...

Tried to read the NYT article. Finest example of post hoc propter hoc I have seen in a while. Find events, including denials. Put in time lines. Start the timelines at a useful period. Assert that because this event happened after this event that cause and effect is proven.
This is not an unraveling. This is giving the cat the yarn ball.

Mike said...

I'll save you the time and summarize:

The "horrible plot" was designed to pit Democrats against Democracy, setting them on a course to question the foundational beliefs of our country, challenge the result of every election, and throw our civic institutions into "chaos." The plan was NOT to support one candidate or another, but to support the BELIEF in a system so fucked up that we can't trust the results. This is why the DNC-Media (always eager to assist America's enemies) spent two years telling us how"chaos" and "controversy" and "crazy atmosphere" envelops the Trump administration, for this was their goal. That it isn't strictly true does not matter, so much effort has now been invested in denying the results of 2016 and impugning the legitimacy of the Trump win.

This was the most successful Russian act against America in our long history, and Progressives are still furiously fighting to keep the chaos building, keep the anger simmering, and assist the Russians in sowing discord among their fellow Americans. Just watch. Inga and Roesch will be along to do their part for the Kremlin shortly. They don't accept the certified, official results of the last election. Just like their hero Hillary, who just said again yesterday that the tragic corruption of the election of 2016 proves we must blow up the constitution and get rid of the electoral college, thereby making mob rule much easier.

That's what the NYT would tell you. If they were honest.

Biff said...

I had a similar experience with CNN this morning. I'm traveling, and CNN was on all the TVs in the hotel's breakfast area. For the twenty minutes I was there, the anchor and her panel (which included Jeffrey Toobin) talked a lot, but there might have been only 30 seconds of actual news. The words "Trump," "investigation," "Cohen," "scandal," and "prosecutor" sure were repeated a lot, but not connected to any clear facts. The whole thing was an exercise in the power of suggestion.

Derek Kite said...

Once they are through with this, are they going to write an article on the 'Truth of 9/11'? They could show a video of the windows being blown out on the lower floors.

2016 Truthers.

jwl said...

I think progressives have been triggered by Trump derangement and they looking for excuse to justify their anger. It is left wing ideologues who can't accept that they lost an easy election, not Russia and their ridiculous Facebook ads, that are threatening American institutions.

Kay said...

Mueller's been mulling it over.

I love this play on words.

Spiros Pappas said...

The Russia trash is nonsense. But people are obsessed! According to Liberty Counsel, a conservative group backing Kavanaugh:

Ford has a brother, Ralph Blasey, who worked for Baker Hostetler, a law firm that retained Fusion GPS, the infamous DC company that produced the unverified Steele dossier on President Donald Trump and Russia, sparking the Russia investigation.

The Russians, evil doppelgangers, what's next? This stuff is over the top crazy. Look, Kavanaugh is an abusive pig, is that really so odd? What the heck do the Russians have to do with a 17 year old beating up a random girl?

Anyways, if I was Trump, or someone advising Trump, I'd pull Christine Ford into the Oval Office. Talk it over with, yada, yada, have a good cry and then dump Kavanaugh. It's a win-win-win...

Michael K said...

That Trump did win, and the Democratic response in particular must seem to them to be unbelievably good luck.

Agreed. They can't believe their luck. China had a lot invested in Hillary and they lost as big as Russia gained.

Michael K said...

Kavanaugh is an abusive pig, is that really so odd? What the heck do the Russians have to do with a 17 year old beating up a random girl?

Do you speak Russian ?

FWBuff said...

This week, the front page of the NYTimes online has been:

(a)this Russian election plot story with Putin as Big Brother/ Cyclops;
(b)guilty Kavanaugh and the #metoo maenads;
and
(c)poor Puerto Ricans who have been denied the answer to "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?"

Any other items for the anti-Trump agenda?

Mike Sylwester said...

Last weekend I watched the movie Trumbo (released in 2015) on cable television. The movie tells how screenwriter Dalton Trumbo defied the House Committee on Unamerican Activities and therefore was blacklisted and jailed during the 1950s.

I enjoyed the movie much more than I though I would.

One unintentionally amusing aspect of the movie is that movie viewers now are supposed to be appalled by the anti-Russia hysteria that governed American society during the 1950s.

The movie's hero Dalton Trumbo stood up to that hysteria. He preached the benefits of free speech. Everyone should be allowed to speak his own mind, and then the best ideas would prevail. The USA should not fear foolishly that our democratic society was being subverted by evil Russians using American agents of influence.

narciso said...

Brother blasey worked for baker years ago, if there was video this would resemble what was done to skuratov.

narciso said...

Trumbo was against the war 'johnny get your gun' objectively pro naziwhen after the Molotov pact, for the war after 1941, he was a Kremlin tool.

CWJ said...

"Can't I just wait for Mueller to lay it all out for me? If there really was "a horrible Russian plot to subvert the 2016 election," it's an emergency, but it's going on 2 years that Mueller's been mulling it over. If Mueller can be so leisurely, I can wait for Mueller. Sorry I'm not more concerned about "the Russian plot" — I would be if I thought Mueller were part of it."

I love this paragraph.

Reminds me of "I'll believe global warming is a crisis, when those telling it is behave like its a crisis."

BUMBLE BEE said...

NYT is so full of shit. Trying out a new narrative or trying to blur their previous full of shitness or both? They'll tell you so many things, you're gonna like one of em'.
Spiros... report to your secretary of state, you're mentally unfit to operate motor vehicles.

narciso said...

That was the f for fusion section of the paper, leaving out the affiliation of all the ni 6 Italian intelligence lures

TestTube said...

It's the 2018 election we need to be worried about folks.

Wacky-gate (or Wacky-quiddick -- not quite sure which label is more appropriate) threatens to engulf our Republic in turmoil and chaos.

Sydney said...

I read the phrase "to subvert the 2016 election" as describing the motive of the New York Times rather than describing the "Russian plot." I have become so cynical.

Michael K said...

Blogger narciso said...
Trumbo was against the war 'johnny get your gun' objectively pro naziwhen after the Molotov pact, for the war after 1941, he was a Kremlin tool.


Kissinger once remarked that the reaction after Hitler invaded the USSR was the giveaway for communists, especially in Hollywood.

Kay said...

Mike Sylwester said...
Last weekend I watched the movie Trumbo (released in 2015) on cable television.


Wasn’t much of a fan of this one. I did like his bathtub writer’s desk setup, though. It was pretty ingenious, and I hope true to life.

Ralph L said...

So what has Mueller's Yuge team of lawyers and investigators been doing for a year and a half?

Mike Sylwester said...

Kay at 9:54 AM
I did like his bathtub writer’s desk setup, though. It was pretty ingenious, and I hope true to life.

During the movie's closing credits, the actors' names were paired with photographs of the actual persons. The name of the actor who played Trumbo was paired with a photograph of Trumbo himself, sitting in a bathtub and writing.

narciso said...

So while France and Belgium and the UK, were under assault, with an army trained in the Soviet union, he had principles,

Ot the dems including Soros and a mercerless renaissance technologies funded an anti mcsally superpac.

Kay said...

Mike Sylwester said...
Kay at 9:54 AM
I did like his bathtub writer’s desk setup, though. It was pretty ingenious, and I hope true to life.

During the movie's closing credits, the actors' names were paired with photographs of the actual persons. The name of the actor who played Trumbo was paired with a photograph of Trumbo himself, sitting in a bathtub and writing.


Nice, I must’ve missed that part or forgotten it.

Freeman Hunt said...

Is there an image with lots of pictures and articles covering a basement wall with red strings tacked up in a web to connect them? Because that's how I picture journalists still flogging this "Russians stole the election!" business.

Two-eyed Jack said...

I tried to read the NYT article, hoping that it would lay out the case with geometric logic, but it quickly got into a "that very day, on the other side of the world" pattern that suggested that this was still a very rough draft of history.

Michael K said...

I did like his bathtub writer’s desk setup, though. It was pretty ingenious, and I hope true to life.

Clifton Webb did his writing in the bathtub in the movie "Laura."

Pre-air conditioning days.

Hunter said...

Look at the paranoia-inducing Putin pic they've got on the front page:

Be seeing you.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Lets get this straight once and for all.

THE LEFT PIMPED TRUMP BECAUSE THEY WANTED TRUMP TO OPPOSE HILLARY ON THE 2016 NOVEMBER BALLOT.

THE LEFT GOT THEIR WISH.

HILLARY LOST ANYWAY.

THE LEFT MADE UP A BIG PHONY STORY TO COVER THE FACT THAT HILLARY SUCKS AGAINST ANYONE, EVEN TRUMP.

tim in vermont said...

“The 1980s called, and they want their foreign policy back!” - BHO

tim in vermont said...

I agree with Mike Sylvester, that Trumbo movie makes an important point about standing up to vocal prigs who overstate their political power. I think that there is a lot of Trump in Trumbo.

tim in vermont said...

Trumbo was against the war ‘johnny get your gun' objectively pro naziwhen after the Molotov pact, for the war after 1941, he was a Kremlin tool.

I don’t doubt that either.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The hivemind like to keep fellow hiveminders on the delusion plantation.

cubanbob said...

"Can't I just wait for Mueller to lay it all out for me? If there really was "a horrible Russian plot to subvert the 2016 election," it's an emergency, but it's going on 2 years that Mueller's been mulling it over. If Mueller can be so leisurely, I can wait for Mueller. Sorry I'm not more concerned about "the Russian plot" — I would be if I thought Mueller were part of it."

Mueller was FBI director the whole time Hillary Clinton with Obama's permission was running the State Department from her bedroom closet server. As head of counterintelligence Mueller has a lot to account for. The fox is guarding the henhouse.

tim in vermont said...

What have they done that harmed our faith in the election process?

Supposedly they were the ones who released TRUE emails that showed how the DNC actually works. I think it was a leak, myself, and I have yet to see any evidence otherwise beyond flat statements of partisans like Clapper. But sure, getting the truth out about the Democrats surely harmed people’s faith in democracy in the US. I mean, after all, Hillary was a paragon of open and honest democracy, wasn’t she? Everybody thought so until those emails leaked! Well, maybe not Donna Brazille, who of course had access to those very emails prior to the leak.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The Democrat party needs the Russian Collusion Narrative to disguise the fact that its leadership is corrupt and inept from its supporters What other explanation is there for anointing Hillary Clinton, of all people, as their candidate for POTUS in 2016? Hillary is corrupt, foolish, and a lousy politician. She lost to Donald Trump! Someone who was opposed by the MSM and the leadership of the GOP.

tim in vermont said...

Mueller was FBI director the whole time Hillary Clinton with Obama’s permission was running the State Department from her bedroom closet server.

Has Obama ever explained why he never appointed an Inspector General for the State Department during Hillary’s tenure there? I kid! I kid! We all know that no IG was part of the deal!

MadisonMan said...

I trust the NYTimes to get to the bottom of this, certainly, and objectively.

TerriW said...

I'd like to see a sentence diagram here, because it's important whether "to subvert the 2016 election" is adjectival, modifying plot, or adverbial, modifying unravel.

John Pickering said...

This is classic Ann, so nonplussed by the whole Russia issue that she can't manage to read a story with a nice feature lead and a clear narrative. Sure, it's pretty long and there are attention-maintaining issues. But really, she is simply advertising her own willingness to stay confused. Come Ann, read the story, and see if you don't agree that there's quite a lot of evidence that shows the U.S. president is something ranging from the dupe, to the stooge, to the witting agent of the Russian president and the Russian intelligence services. Some of you other guys, give it a read!
Of course there are plenty of people on this blog, including the person who posts under a cyrillic name, who don't see anything wrong with the president being a Russian tool. Of course, that's nothing compared to Hillary's e-mails! Hahahaha!

Birkel said...

Strozk and Page said there was no evidence of Russian meddling. And they hated Trump. And they could see the raw data.

John Pickering knows better, somehow, because his hatred is pure.

Lewis Wetzel said...

The article reads like one of those bizarre conspiracy theory things that tries to link Area 51 to the JFK Assassination. " . . . and so, in 1962, that American military officer, who had praised the use of the Garand as an assassination weapon, found himself posted a high level position managing Area 51 projects in Nevada. However, on the fateful morning of November 22, he was not in Nevada. The previous evening he had checked into a Dallas, Texas Travelodge owned by a Jack Ruby associate. As the next chapter reveals, the mysterious scar-faced man was also known to visit Travelodge's in Texas during this time period . . ."

Ralph L said...

Has the NYT ever diagrammed the ins and outs of the Dossier/FISA scandal?

narciso said...

Everyone knows it the Algerian combat veteran jean souetre

gahrie said...

Of course there are plenty of people on this blog, including the person who posts under a cyrillic name, who don't see anything wrong with the president being a Russian tool.

I especially like the part where Putin told trump to increase oil and natural gas production to drive down the price of oil and hurt the Russian economy. Or the part where Putin told Trump to force Europe to actually start defending itself from Russian aggression. Or the part where Trump told Germany it was a bad idea to become dependent on energy imported from Russia. I'm still not sure if Putin told Trump to actually start opposing Russian efforts in Syria though.....the Neocons might have done that.

Rory said...

RW said: "What other explanation is there for anointing Hillary Clinton, of all people, as their candidate for POTUS in 2016?"

Uh, 2020. This thing is forward-looking..

SGT Ted said...

The NYT isn't unraveling a thing. It's just another bullshit propaganda slag.

Static Ping said...

The Putin picture looks like the cyclops from Krull.

On the plus side, the cyclops was the best thing about that bad movie.

John Pickering said...

Like many of Ann's readers, gahrie prefers to invent things rather than read the New York Times. So he writes amusingly

I especially like the part where Putin told trump to increase oil and natural gas production to drive down the price of oil and hurt the Russian economy.

This is the author admiring his own fantasy. There are a few other of Ann's readers who think the price of oil has gone down under Trump's regime. Folks, it hasn't.

For more than a week, Brent Crude prices have been flirting with the $80 threshold as market participants have focused on the shrinking oil supply from Iran and continuous drop in Venezuela’s production.

For a couple of weeks now, investors, traders, and money managers have been increasingly bullish on Brent Crude, while Permian constraints have made them trim bets that WTI Crude prices would rise.

The bullish sentiment in Brent was further stoked this week by reports that OPEC’s largest producer and leader Saudi Arabia may now be comfortable letting oil prices rise above $80 a barrel—a possible sign that the Saudis may not be rushing to balance supply if more Iranian oil comes off the market this month and next.

Guys, in case you want to think reasonably about this issue, remember that because the Russian economy depends on oil revenues, it's in their interest for oil prices to rise. And Trump has certainly delivered on that.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Crazy conspiracy theories are easy to spot. They never go anywhere. The vital piece of evidence is always missing, they just go in circles. You know the cliche. There is a bulletin board in the investigator's office, with tacked up scraps of paper -- newspaper clippings, short hand-written notes -- and the investigator has used pieces of string to tie the information together, to show the connections, the narrative pattern that only he can see.
That is insane, it is the working of a disturbed mind.
In real conspiracies, the picture becomes sharper as time goes on. The circle around the person or persons of interest becomes smaller, not larger. All roads take you a point.
Hell, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is interchangeable with "Russian Intelligence."

gahrie said...

For more than a week, Brent Crude prices have been flirting with the $80 threshold as market participants have focused on the shrinking oil supply from Iran and continuous drop in Venezuela’s production.

Guys, in case you want to think reasonably about this issue, remember that because the Russian economy depends on oil revenues, it's in their interest for oil prices to rise. And Trump has certainly delivered on that.

OK..let's accept your facts as true......how exactly did Trump cause Iran's oil production to shrink or Venezuela's oil production to drop? Has U.S. oil and natural gas production declined or grown since Trump took office? Would the price of oil be even higher or lower if U.S. production had not increased?

n.n said...

NYT, in a hat, on the roof, plays with its ball of yarns.

gahrie said...

I forget ..what president promised to be more flexible with the Russians after his election, and promised that he was going to increase the price of energy..I don't think it was Trump.....

Lewis Wetzel said...


I especially like the part where Putin told trump to increase oil and natural gas production to drive down the price of oil and hurt the Russian economy.
This means . . . that Obama was in Putin's pocket, too? Can't we have at least one president who isn't dancing to Putin's tune?

walter said...

That pic of Puty-Poot reminded me of the Sniper skills he recently demonstrated.
A rifle scope's view..

chuck said...

At some point there will need to be a `Russia BS` tag.

Mike said...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
Lets get this straight once and for all.

THE LEFT PIMPED TRUMP BECAUSE THEY WANTED TRUMP TO OPPOSE HILLARY ON THE 2016 NOVEMBER BALLOT.

THE LEFT GOT THEIR WISH.

HILLARY LOST ANYWAY.

THE LEFT MADE UP A BIG PHONY STORY TO COVER THE FACT THAT HILLARY SUCKS AGAINST ANYONE, EVEN TRUMP.

****************************************************************************************

Yep.

Francisco D said...

"Guys, in case you want to think reasonably about this issue, remember that because the Russian economy depends on oil revenues, it's in their interest for oil prices to rise. And Trump has certainly delivered on that."

Pickering,

I wonder if you actually believe what you wrote.

Can you name one action that Trump has taken to increase oil prices?

I don't think so. As you well know, he has helped increase domestic production and US oil exports.

How does that help Russia?

Darrell said...

The last chance to use the RUSSIA! meme before they are laughed out of the MSM.
Embarrassing.
Mexican-owned media complains of Russian interference in US politics.

Howard said...

Ann: Thanks for posting the pic of Vlad. It instantly reminded me of the Zuckerberg art in the current New Yorker. Both are excellent illustrations.

pixalated zuckerclops

Lewis Wetzel said...

So Russia managed to tilt the election with $400k of Facebook ads when Hillary coudn't do it with a billion dollars in spending, and the backing of Silicon Valley and the media?
You don't say!

rcocean said...

John Pickering plays the supercilious Left-wing troll.

Everyone who disagrees with, just doesn't "understand".

LOL. The assumed air of superiority - not backed by facts - is a clear Troll indicator.

John Pickering said...

The question is:

Can you name one action that Trump has taken to increase oil prices?

Answer: Yes, he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deals and has increased sanctions against Iran as well as threatened sanctions against countries that buy oil from Iran. Since Iran is one of the world's major crude producers, the loss of Iranian supply has pushed up the price of oil. Trump has also failed to jawbone OPEC into boosting production, which would drive down prices. Finally, he has failed to come through with US infrastructure projects that would facilitate the shipment of oil from the Permian to the Gulf coast; and one consequence of the steel tariffs has been to disrupt steel supplies to pipeline manufacturers in the US, delaying the building of the pipelines. Generally speaking, war-like talk regarding such places as the Mideast or the Korean peninsula raises anxiety among oil traders, who fret about supply lines in a war situation. So, those are some reasons. Stop the steel tariffs, build the pipelines, re-enter the Iran agreement, and settle down and be a normal person, and oil prices will go down. But Putin doesn't want that, so neither does the stooge in the White House.

Other questions, let me know.

gahrie said...

Answer: Yes, he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deals and has increased sanctions against Iran as well as threatened sanctions against countries that buy oil from Iran

And he reason for doing this was not to punish Iran...it was to raise oil prices for Russia.

John Pickering said...

Gahrie: that's correct. Higher oil prices are a key geopolitical imperative for the Russian state, and are being facilitated by the White House.

Robert Cook said...

I'm sure the executives of the oil companies are pleased at increased oil prices as well. Have you excluded them from your calculus?

John Pickering said...

No, but that wasn't the question, and of course former secretary of state Rex Tillerson was the former Exxon chief with deep ties to Russia. Certainly, higher oil prices benefit the executives and shareholders of the major oil companies, but I would argue that that constituency is less important to the president than the Kremlin is.

Henry said...

Shouldn't that headline be: ""We unravel the Russian plot, to subvert the 2018 election."

tim in vermont said...

.it was to raise oil prices for Russia.

No other analysis is remotely plausible.

tim in vermont said...

I like how Trump is responsible for delaying a pipeline that Obama tried to kill and Hillary promised to keep dead.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Pickering, are you really going to take the position that high oil prices are caused by the US president being under Putin's thumb? Or just now, with this president?
That's thing with conspiracy theories. You have lots and lots of dots, and you can connect them however you like.
So you connect "high oil prices" with "president under Putin's thumb", but you ignore "president permits arms sales to anti-Russian Ukrainians" and "president not under Putin's thumb."

John Pickering said...

Lewis, yes, my point is about this president. Over the eight years of the last president's administration, WTI prices wound up fairly steady, rising from about $50/bbl in Jan. 2009 to about $55/bbl in Jan 2017, featuring a spike to as high as $120/bbl in April 2011 and a drop to about $36/bbl in Feb. 2016. The charts since Trump became president are pretty much straight up. Of course there's lots of reasons mainly having to do with supply and demand and war fears that drive the price of oil higher. I'm saying it's in Russia's interest that oil prices are high, and Trump has done nothing to discourage that from happening, has in fact encouraged it, as I've tried to show.
Not sure what effect on oil prices the sale of arms to anti-Russian Ukrainians might have, but as far as those guys are concerned, how's it going with the Ukrainians? They've lost almost a third of their country. Putin's winning that one by a mile.
Among other geopolitical disasters on the horizon, Trump is going to wind up getting the U.S. kicked out of the Korean peninsula as the Koreas make a separate peace under the Chinese security umbrella, while China and Russia themselves grow closer as opportunities to embarrass and humiliate the U.S. proliferate.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Pickering, have you ever charted oil price against common measures of economic growth, like the Baltic Dry Index or simple GDP growth? Or just looked at the research that studies the correlation between economic growth in the G7 and oil prices?

John Pickering said...

I haven't, but would be interested in your analysis of the relationship between the shipping of dry goods and the price of oil. Other people like to keep track the price of copper as an expansion indicator, seeing as it is "the metal with a Ph.D in economics." Let me know

Lewis Wetzel said...

See what you did there, Pickering? You ignored common measures that correlate to oil price, and instead arbitrarily chose "Trump is Putin's home boy" as the cause of the rise in oil prices.
FYI, the BDI is an interesting measure of economic growth because it tracks increases in trade, not GDP growth in any given country.

tcrosse said...

Russian Collusion is no longer necessary as an explanation why the smartest, best qualified person ever to run for President lost to that moron Trump. She Herself has allowed a tome to be published with Her by-line which offers an exhaustive list of others who are to blame.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Political scientists worldwide must be beating down the door of the GRU. The GRU got to elect the American president! And by spending just a couple of hundred thousand bucks! And most of those GRU guys can't even speak English!

Francisco D said...

Pickering is delusional and likely has his head up his ass. He sounds like a tenured sociology professor at a junior college.

The obvious long term trend in oil prices is that they are depressed by increased US production. Short term variations (as with the stock market) tend to be unpredictable and temporary.

Failure to jawbone? You cannot be serious.

Dealing with trade imbalances are helpful to Putin? Really??

I guess Pickering will say that Trump screwed up the economy when the stock market makes a much anticipation correction. He will forget that the market has improved by 50% since Trump won. Oh Yeah. That was Obama's success.

To copy a term from Crack, you people are crazy.

Big Mike said...

We unravel the Russian plot to subvert the 2016 election

So the Emperor’s new clothes were knitted and crocheted?

tim in vermont said...

I have seen Pickering's type before. They could muster lots of statistics and arguments about how peak oil was upon us, though none of it could stand up to questioning, so when questioned, they resort to bluster and more persiflage.