Former President Donald Trump had bragged about his success in opening the region to oil production after decades of political fighting over the resources locked under the tundra there.

  • @luckyhunter
    link
    -271 year ago

    Most Americans have 401k’s which are invest broadly, including the energy sector.

    • @DanglingFury
      link
      131 year ago

      If you invest in oil, then you should want higher gas prices. If you want lower gas prices, then i recommend not investing in oil. If you want energy independance, then you should be championing green energy initiatives and electric cars as much as drilling new claims, even if you yourself dont plan on getting an ev it reduces national dependance.

      Oil companies got crushed under trump with the insanely low gas prices of 2016 2017 (i think it was saudi selling at a loss to take market share that time), then again under covids reduced demand and more opec suppliers flooding the market and stealing market share (also under trump). Then they cut production to match demand and cut costs. You can’t just turn a well off and back on, so when demand rose gobally post covid and foreign suppliers cut back production at the same time to reap the profits, the US lagged in ramping up production, and their record profits (under biden) didnt incen tivise them ramping it up. Those 5$ gas prices made the stock go up.

      The president does influence gas prices, but not much. Here’s a decent video on gas prices.

      https://youtu.be/QnBqAzJXVGo?si=rdfQFVneqaOtf9u9

      • @luckyhunter
        link
        -121 year ago

        Gas prices don’t bother me personally as long as government isn’t unnecessarily hamstringing the domestic industry. The people who should be most upset about $5 gas are the ones financially struggling to buy it.

        • @Viking_Hippie
          link
          61 year ago

          Translation: I don’t give a fuck as long as the rich people who own the industry get richer. People with less money than me should join me in protecting those poor billionaires and hectomillionaires from only becoming 45% richer every year or two.

          Here in reality, the US is the number one oil producer in the world and exports much more than it uses. Prices are not affected by production anywhere near as much as by commodities trading, cartel price fixing and good old fashioned profiteering.

      • @luckyhunter
        link
        -31 year ago

        sorry, 79% of the workforce has the option of a 401k. which is a huge majority. If a person chooses to opt out, that’s on them.

          • @luckyhunter
            link
            0
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            not bullshit. it’s 100% their personal choice, and a bad one.

            • Flying Squid
              link
              21 year ago

              Notice I provided evidence and you did not?

              • @luckyhunter
                link
                11 year ago

                You provided my evidence for me. Your article says 79%.

                • Flying Squid
                  link
                  11 year ago

                  It says a 401(k)-style plan, which is very vague. Maybe they don’t go for it because it’s a shitty 401(k)-style plan.

                  • @luckyhunter
                    link
                    11 year ago

                    If there is zero employer match then sure. 401k-style plans are all basically the same as a 401k, the largest differences are really on the administration end. I have a small business and offer my guys SIMPLE IRA with a match. From what I can tell there’s no difference from the employee side.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      Stupid deflection and “most” is wildly inaccurate, unless you’re talking about boomers, who by your standards, should be thanking Biden then

      • @luckyhunter
        link
        -131 year ago

        Fine, not “most” then. Practically all mature adults who are a net benefit to society have 401k’s.

        • Flying Squid
          link
          91 year ago

          Define “net benefit to society.” Does that include the entire service industry, much of which does not offer 401(k) plans? I’d like to see what you would do without all the people who pamper you.

          • @luckyhunter
            link
            -21 year ago

            net tax payer, depending on where you live that’s something like 60-80k per year. and 401k is just the most common of many ways to save for retirement. The biggest loss would be the house cleaners for sure.

            • Flying Squid
              link
              31 year ago

              You think house cleaners would be the biggest loss? How about waiters? How about cooks? How about fucking janitors?

              None of them are a net benefit to society? Well then why even have those jobs? They’re a net loss to society.

              • @luckyhunter
                link
                -21 year ago

                I Don’t go out much. The house cleaners do pamper me though.

        • @kmkz_ninja
          link
          81 year ago

          There’s the Republican moral compass. Unless you’re giving corporations extra spending cash, you’re a detriment to society.

          • @luckyhunter
            link
            01 year ago

            ooh boy, you need to hear this. Social security will NOT provide you enough to live in retirement. You really should learn about and invest in a 401k or some sort of retirement account.