Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. Oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz are projected to stay at just 5% of normal levels for six weeks before a gradual one-month recovery. The authors expect the resulting supply shock to prompt policymakers to rebuild strategic reserves and markets to price a security premium into long-dated oil.

Daan Struyven, Yulia Zhestkova Grigsby and Alexandra Paulus Goldman Sachs
Date Posted:

Goldman’s base case forecast now has Brent averaging $110 across March/April and $115 in April, with Hormuz flows at 5% of normal levels through April 10th.

Will a prolonged shipping disruption keep oil prices elevated longer?

Core argument: The analysts now expect Strait of Hormuz flows to stay at 5% of normal levels for 6 weeks, through April 11, before a gradual 1-month recovery, versus their prior assumption of 10% for 3 weeks.

We now expect Hormuz flows to remain at only 5% of normal levels for a longer period totaling 6 weeks (vs. 10% for 3 weeks prior) before a gradual 1-month recovery. We previously laid out three theoretical paths for a pick-up in Hormuz flows: 1) Iran allowing safe passage of tankers with certain origins/destinations (e.g. China, India, Japan), 2) conflict de-escalation, and 3) military protection for tankers. While the uncertainty about the duration of disruptions remains high, the 6-weeks assumption for peak Hormuz disruptions sits between a) the 4 to 6 weeks range for the military operation cited by US policymakers and b) the median length of the conflict currently reflected in prediction markets. Because our 6-weeks (i.e. 5% of normal flows till April 11) assumption corresponds to SoH flows edging up above 5% and because Iran already allows some selective passage, SoH flows are likely to exceed 5% before the conflict ends. The largest oil supply shock ever will likely lead policymakers and markets to recognize the structural risks from the high concentration of production and spare capacity in the Middle East and from the vulnerability of energy infrastructure. Specifically, we now expect policymakers to rebuild higher strategic reserve levels after reopening of the Strait and markets to build a security premium in long-dated prices.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The analysts now expect Strait of Hormuz flows to stay at 5% of normal levels for 6 weeks, through April 11, before a gradual 1-month recovery, versus their prior assumption of 10% for 3 weeks.
  2. The 6-week peak-disruption assumption sits between the 4–6 week range for the military operation cited by US policymakers and the median conflict length reflected in prediction markets.
  3. The analysts expect the oil supply shock to prompt policymakers to rebuild higher strategic reserve levels after the Strait reopens and markets to build a security premium into long-dated prices.

Related Articles:

  • Pandora’s Bog: The Global Energy Shock of 2026 — Gulf liquefied natural gas is only 3% of global gas consumption, but because commodity prices are set at the margin, its loss pushes gas import prices higher in Europe and Asia as China, Korea, India and Pakistan seek replacement supplies on the spot market. Undamaged Qatari facilities would need 3-4 months to reach full loading.
  • You Can’t Print Molecules — Rebuilding after a disruption to a key shipping strait would require governments to finance defense, strategic reserves, domestic energy production, and infrastructure at the same time that inflation expectations are raising funding costs. The author argues capital will rotate out of asset-light sectors that thrived on open sea lanes and cheap energy into asset-heavy physical ones.
  • Fighting Words: The Energy Transition in 2026 — Estimates based on primary energy overstate how much electricity is needed to replace oil in passenger cars, since electric motors convert 80%-90% of electricity into motion versus about 18% for gasoline cars. Measuring useful final energy net of waste heat avoids this "primary energy fallacy": the US consumed 45 exajoules of useful final energy versus 95 exajoules of primary energy.
Showing 48 database articles primarily about Energy