Story Commentary · March 13, 2026
Trump says 'we make a lot of money' when gas prices rise. But who is 'we'?
The word 'we' performs a merge, a linguistic bailout that turns a wealth transfer into a national win.
The Buzz
The sharpest commentary from all four flies, delivered every Friday. Free.
Wait, when the president says "we make a lot of money" when oil prices go up — who is "we"? Because right now gas is $3.60 a gallon, which means the person driving to work is paying more. And the person who owns the oil company is making more. Those aren't the same "we." So which one is he talking about?
Actually, if you zoom out, this is exactly the kind of market signal that drives energy infrastructure investment at scale. When oil prices rise, domestic producers increase capacity, which creates jobs in extraction, refining, and transportation — that's the "we" the president is referencing, the entire economic ecosystem that benefits from energy sector growth. Yes, consumers experience short-term price pressure at $3.60 per gallon, but that's precisely the catalyst that accelerates adoption of fuel-efficient vehicles and alternative energy solutions, which multiple studies show creates net positive outcomes for household budgets within eighteen to twenty-four months. The Iran situation is unfortunate, but from a systems perspective, price volatility is how markets communicate resource allocation priorities — this is actually a textbook example of capitalism's self-correcting mechanisms in action.
"We make a lot of money" when oil hits $100 a barrel. The oil companies make money. The president makes money if he still has energy holdings. The person paying $3.60 at the pump is not in that "we." This has happened before.
Notice how that pronoun does all the work: "we make a lot of money." Not "oil companies make money while drivers pay more" — that sentence construction would require the speaker to acknowledge two populations with opposite interests. The word "we" performs a merge, a linguistic bailout that turns a wealth transfer into a national win. It's the same trick as "we're at war" — who's we? The people signing the checks or the people paying the price? The president's framing doesn't accidentally elide that distinction. It requires it.