> is an impotent threat of attacking ships?

All the ships stuck in the Gulf probably didn't consider the threat impotent.

On the other side: what more can the US do? Target civilian infrastructure? There is no appetite for getting stuck with boots on the ground, and everyone (including Iran) knows this.

You're probably right that it won't a win for anyone. If some of the points includes removing sanctions from Iran, it might be a huge win -- for Iran, or at-least it's population.

This is true. 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.

> Their mercenary IDF

Lol, under what definition?

Personally, I have a hard time seeing any good actors here.

But of all the actors, I kind of doubt Israel is in it for the money.

Window is not closing.. the stonk market would go to zero. Any doubt about being able to move assets out of the US would cause a run on US stonks.

Also the US has fairly strong private property rights.

We've seen time and again that rights and laws mean shit to the current administration.

My point is: Blocking withdrawal of financial assets from the US would be wall street ending.

No foreign investors would put money into US stonks.

It's not impossible, sure, but probably worse than the great depression.

Of course, why not? Imagine anything blocking it would crash wall street.

Do you think Europeans are going to have a problem buying/selling US stonks any time soon?

Add cheap labor to the equation.

In developed countries 20-50% of the cost of roof top solar is labor.

If the life cycle is 25 years we crunch to find a new supplier (should it be necessary) won't come as urgently :)

Agreed, but the headline should be "Europeans buying mini solar farms", in my opinion.

In Denmark fuel is so expensive they sell it by litre :)

> Sanctions could be lifted on Russian oil

I'd rather freeze.

The initial car is more expensive. You'll typically make it up, but it depends on how much you drive.

And you have to pay interest on larger car loan.

But in practice, yes, when charging at home EVs are dirty cheap to charge.

The total cost of ownership (toc) for an EV is much lower. But you are paying it all upfront.

I don't know about that, this car cost 23k EUR which is cheaper than a VW Polo, which is roughly in the same category.

That is cheap..

But there is are lots of people buying a used car for 10k

Regardless, I do a agree, EV is absolutely the way to go.

Electric cars are mechanically simpler.

Subsidizing gas is an expensive temporary bandaid solution.

Higher prices will drive EV adoption and busses.

In the EU, EVs or public transit is the only long term solutions we have.

Lifting the gas price regulations will somehow make EVs more affordable to the average Slovenian?

Electricity is expensive here too.

Public transit wise, good luck. The bus system has only been getting worse (despite sustained usage), trains are not much better. There just aren’t any viable routes in many places — it would take me 6h to commute 80km to Ljubljana (3 transfers with waiting time in between), it takes 1h30 by car in peak traffic.

Both busses and trains are also much more expensive than just driving yourself unless you’re retired or in school and thus have a subsidized ticket. And this is with regulated gas prices.