and depends on factors outside your control.

This last is a critical caveat, and really the crux of the argument. It's not about cheating, but the limits of predictability in complex dynamic systems.

There are multiple issues that will force a lag of at least a couple of months. First, the issue of the mines that have been reported. Second, the tanker owners will want to be quite sure hostilities aren't going to erupt again. Third, while tankers that are trapped will leave, there will be a major lag while tankers that have been moved to other parts of the world get redirected back to the Strait to fill up. It will indeed be months before there is enough oil flowing to start retaining reserves again. It isn't like the state of shipping was frozen the day the war started and will unfreeze as soon as the ink is dry on the new cease-fire deal.

And even more importantly, China has slashed its crude imports, turning instead to massive stockpiles. (https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/09/business/oil-strait-of-hormuz...)

Sounds like they're burning through their reserves as well. But since China's economy is more centrally controlled, it's likely they keep bigger reserves.

Not quite. Once the conflict ends, there will a lag of several months before the tanks will start filling up again. So even if it ends tomorrow, we may still have to ban oil exports for some time. I don't think there are any political ramifications for Trump---he has complete control over what used to be the Republican Party, and banning exports would probably actually help him with undecideds. But he will get heat from his sponsors and handlers in the oil industry. Policy-wise, Trump is a blank sheet of paper, continuously filled in by anyone in a position of power who flatters or bribes him. And the oil industry has been a major patron for him.

There's a practice in the loan industry called "pretend and extend," which basically means endlessly extending credit to lendees who are behind to avoid acknowledging the loss. Remember, in Carvana's case the loan buyer only exists to take on debt, not be a going concern. I think much of the market actually realizes Carvana is a scam, they just see that it is a relatively sustainable one as long as the government doesn't step in. And they don't see that happening, particularly with the current administration.

Carvana is the poster child for this. It's astonishing that a company with a history of shady practices, and that has yet to offer a convincing explanation for why it is not a scam, is part of the S&P 500.

There's nothing wrong with it, in moderation. Where it becomes a problem is when the distribution of wealth starts diverging widely from people's expectation of what a fair distribution would be, accounting for different levels of ability and luck. Aside from this cognitive dissonance, there are also pragmatic limits on how big a disparity can be while still having a functional democracy. It's clear that truly enormous disparities in wealth, made even worse by a lack of regulation in political donation, lead to major distortions in the principle of "one person, one vote" which is a cornerstone of democracy.

>Or asked differently, if it is bad, should every individual have the exact same wealth?

No, because people have different levels of ability and experience different amounts of luck. Inequality is inevitable, and the vast majority of people understand and accept that. But they also expect that the system should at least roughly resemble a meritocracy, and that is impossible to maintain in an unregulated capital system because of the feedback loop between capital and income. Most professional sports leagues recognize this problem: once a franchise starts winning, they make more money, which allows them to buy better players, which leads to more wins, etc, until you have a league where a handful of teams can win the championship and the others are perennial also-rans. So they cap the amount of money that can be used for salaries. They are free, of course, to make as much money as they can, they just can't plow it all back into player salaries. Capital is regulated to preserve the fairness of the system. That doesn't mean the teams are all equal, there are still franchises that perform better over time than others. But it's more clearly tied to intrinsic merit like coaching systems and player development, not just going out and buying proven superstars.

Similarly, a person of average skill can get lucky and make a large amount of money. Having that capital in turn makes it easier to make more money. Over time, and across many such situations, capital starts outrunning merit as a predictor of someone's future income, which is socially demoralizing. That's where the US is today: a pervasive feeling that the system is rigged. To a great extent, this widespread perception contributes to the current political climate in the US.

And that would be fine, but without more rigorous controls on corporate behavior, you'll end up paying more and not keeping your data.