Taking a break - no post this week

I am taking a break this week and plan to post again on Sunday, April 26.

Why most economists vastly underestimate the economic damage of the Iran conflict

A priest, an engineer and an economist are stranded on a desert island. The first order of business is to get some food. The priest suggests that they all pray. The practical-minded engineer suggests that the three men make a net to catch some fish. But where will they find the necessary materials? The priest and the engineer turn to the economist and ask him if he has any ideas. The economist replies, "Assume a fish."

This well-worn economist joke summarizes one of the chief flaws in contemporary economic theory. That theory almost completely ignores the role of physical resources, assuming they will always be available in the quantities we need at prices we can afford at the time we need them. When those resources aren't available, that theory begrudgingly accepts that there will be some damage to economic activity, but tends to greatly underestimate the impact. This conceptual flaw explains why economists in most financial institutions and governments and thus investors are not especially alarmed at the loss of energy resources as stock market indices remain not too far from their recent highs.

For a good summary of how contemporary economic theory goes off the rails, Australian economist Steve Keen offers a mercifully brief and comprehensible explanation. Here I will relate one critical part of that explanation. About 5.7 percent of U.S. GDP is devoted to procuring and distributing energy. Most economists will tell you that a 10 percent decline in energy availability would have a small effect on the U.S. economy. They would take the percentage of the economy devoted to energy, in this case 5.7 percent, and multiply it by 10 percent to arrive at a 0.57 percent reduction in economic activity.

Martin Act to the rescue: Insider trading on Trump reversals in the legal crosshairs

Currently unknown investors netted tens of millions of dollars in profit by placing huge trades in the oil futures markets just 15 minutes before President Donald Trump announced he was extending the deadline for strikes on Iran's energy infrastructure by five days to allow for nonexistent "negotiations" (which then turned into an additional 10 days—which meant little since U.S. and Israeli bombing simply continued). Because these investors bet on a fall in oil prices, they made money when the price of oil dropped sharply after the announcement.

The same or other investors traded heavily in stock index futures before the Iran announcement and profited handsomely as stock futures soared. All these investors could end up in legal jeopardy for engaging in insider trading if they were somehow given a heads up about the announcement. Were their trades just coincidental to the announcement? It seems unlikely, but that's the big question an investigation would answer.