Economists Predict Recession in 2024; Oil Likely to Hit $100 Per Barrel Again

Wouldn't it be nice if we were producing our own oil, like we did for four years before this usurper was placed in the White House by a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States of a valid election?

Oil prices are expected to rise in the new year after some OPEC+ oil producers voluntarily pledged to cut output.

The oil cartel on Thursday released a statement that did not formally endorse production cuts, but individual countries announced voluntary reductions totaling 2.2 million barrels per day for the first quarter of 2024.

Leading the cuts is OPEC kingpin and largest member Saudi Arabia. Riyadh agreed to extend its voluntary production cut of 1 million barrels per day -- which has been in place since July -- until the end of the first quarter of 2024. Russia said it will cut supply by 300,000 barrels per day of crude and 200,000 barrels per day of petroleum products over the same period.

Oh, Saudi Arabia is cutting production again? I guess maybe you shouldn't publicly accuse the Crown Prince of a major oil-producing ally of murder, especially if you also plan on restricting US oil production at the same time.

Meanwhile -- and I doubt that economists have factored this just-announced production cut into their forecasts -- economists say the economy will slow in 2024, and that the odds of a recession are 50/50.

"The NABE [National Association of Business Economics] Outlook Survey Panel anticipates stronger U.S. economic growth projections for 2023 than in the October Outlook survey, but panelists expect growth to slow to 1% between the fourth quarter of 2023 and the fourth quarter of 2024," said NABE President Ellen Zentner, chief U.S. economist at Morgan Stanley, in the group's latest survey.

U.S. GDP is expected to slow to 1.2% in the fourth quarter as tracked by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta's GDP Now, which was updated on Dec. 1, citing a slowdown in construction spending and manufacturing.

1% growth! That's terrible. And of course they're also saying that we'll have a recession, two quarters of negative growth, in addition.

The old saying is that the public's sentiments about the economy are formed, what, nine months before an election?

A few months ago Biden attempted to affirmatively run on his miserable, immiserating economy, instead of running away from it. He really thought that his media allies still had the public's confidence enough that they could brainwash citizens into believing Biden's economy was some kind of miracle.

Well, that did not work. And now House Democrats announce that they will not be joining Roomba Joe in his suicide mission of saying "If you love this economy, vote for me!"

This is Axios, which is Politico for the Developmentally Delayed. And I can't believe I just inadvertently suggested that Politico is not for the Developmentally Delayed.

House Democrats have rejected the White House's months-long campaign to sell the term "Bidenomics."

Why it matters: Democrats are going into the 2024 election divided on how to communicate about the economy at a time when most voters are dissatisfied with it.

What's happening: House Democratic leadership stopped pushing the term months ago.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and House Majority PAC, two key fundraising arms, are also avoiding it on social media and press releases, as polling indicates the tagline is ineffective.

In a meeting this past summer to discuss economic messaging strategy, House Democrats decided to stick with "People Over Politics" rather than "Bidenomics," one senior Democratic leadership aide told Axios.

Zoom in: The "Bidenomics" catchphrase seemed to present a host of issues, according to Democratic sources.

The term was seen as tone-deaf to voters still struggling economically and also invoked a president with lackluster polling numbers.

One Democratic strategist said the biggest problem wasn't using "Biden," but that the term was too philosophical and required too much explanation.

This is always their excuse -- their claims are "too complicated" for the stupid American public to understand.

No. The truth is pretty easy to understand, especially in cases like this. People know they have less wealth than they did before. That's easy to understand.

The lie -- that they're actually wealthier than they were before -- is "too philosophical and complicated" because it requires accepting a host of false premises to accept. False premises like "you're not unemployed, you're funemployed" or "inflation is really Winflation."

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 02:15 PM

| Access Comments