Good overview. One thing I'd push back on: "COVID-style lockdowns will make a comeback" re the Asian energy crisis. That's a strong claim. COVID lockdowns were epidemiological tools, not energy rationing. The historical analogue here is the 1973 oil crisis: driving bans, fuel rationing, industrial curtailments. Different mechanism, different politics, different public response. Energy rationing doesn't require people to stay home, it requires people to use less.
On the midterms point, you're right that a Democrat sweep is the most likely single outcome (~49% on Polymarket). But it's worth noting that the real uncertainty is in the Senate, not the House. The House is essentially priced as done (85% Democratic). The Senate is a coin flip at 52%. If you're looking for a tradeable edge, that's where it lives.
Nate Silver's new Iran War polling tracker is useful context here. War support has been flat at 40% since day one, no rally-around-the-flag effect. If that holds and the war extends past the April 6 deadline, the Senate number should move. Worth watching.
Solid weekly roundup overall. Subscribed to follow your predictions – accountability in this space is rare and I respect it.
Fully agree on the midterms, it’s all about the Senate at this point, the House is going for the Dems. These are state-races though, I need to dive deeper into how war affects each one of them. Chances are some can benefit from it.
On the lockdowns, one of the unintended consequence of global lockdowns was demand destruction. It is estimated that the world destroyed demand for ca. 8 million barrels per day then. Back then it had to be countered by QE, now it can soften the blow of supply destruction. WFH, curfews, closure of non-essential businesses is now a tested method of demand destruction that people essentially “trained for” during the pandemic; theoretically new lockdowns could be less chaotic and we know we can off-ramp pretty easily once supply is back on.
That being said, they will first implement measures like you said. In fact some of them are already implemented in most of Asia and some European countries. My thinking is that it is not enough and lockdowns offer a tested way to further curb demand in the most affected countries in Asia, Africa and Europe.
That's a much stronger argument. Framing it as deliberate demand destruction with a tested playbook – yeah, I can see that. The 8 million bpd number speaks for itself. My issue was more with the word "lockdown" – it feels politically toxic right now, which makes it a harder sell even if the mechanics work.
Breaking down the Senate race state by state is an interesting move. Energy-producing states and net importers could react to this war very differently. That's a thread worth pulling on.
Good overview. One thing I'd push back on: "COVID-style lockdowns will make a comeback" re the Asian energy crisis. That's a strong claim. COVID lockdowns were epidemiological tools, not energy rationing. The historical analogue here is the 1973 oil crisis: driving bans, fuel rationing, industrial curtailments. Different mechanism, different politics, different public response. Energy rationing doesn't require people to stay home, it requires people to use less.
On the midterms point, you're right that a Democrat sweep is the most likely single outcome (~49% on Polymarket). But it's worth noting that the real uncertainty is in the Senate, not the House. The House is essentially priced as done (85% Democratic). The Senate is a coin flip at 52%. If you're looking for a tradeable edge, that's where it lives.
Nate Silver's new Iran War polling tracker is useful context here. War support has been flat at 40% since day one, no rally-around-the-flag effect. If that holds and the war extends past the April 6 deadline, the Senate number should move. Worth watching.
Solid weekly roundup overall. Subscribed to follow your predictions – accountability in this space is rare and I respect it.
Fully agree on the midterms, it’s all about the Senate at this point, the House is going for the Dems. These are state-races though, I need to dive deeper into how war affects each one of them. Chances are some can benefit from it.
On the lockdowns, one of the unintended consequence of global lockdowns was demand destruction. It is estimated that the world destroyed demand for ca. 8 million barrels per day then. Back then it had to be countered by QE, now it can soften the blow of supply destruction. WFH, curfews, closure of non-essential businesses is now a tested method of demand destruction that people essentially “trained for” during the pandemic; theoretically new lockdowns could be less chaotic and we know we can off-ramp pretty easily once supply is back on.
That being said, they will first implement measures like you said. In fact some of them are already implemented in most of Asia and some European countries. My thinking is that it is not enough and lockdowns offer a tested way to further curb demand in the most affected countries in Asia, Africa and Europe.
That's a much stronger argument. Framing it as deliberate demand destruction with a tested playbook – yeah, I can see that. The 8 million bpd number speaks for itself. My issue was more with the word "lockdown" – it feels politically toxic right now, which makes it a harder sell even if the mechanics work.
Breaking down the Senate race state by state is an interesting move. Energy-producing states and net importers could react to this war very differently. That's a thread worth pulling on.