Roger, a great starting point for economists would be to read Edward O. Wilson's books Consilience and On Human Nature. The purpose of economics seems to be in great part for predictive purposes. In order to predict, the economist must know how humans will react when humans are making choices that have economic consequences. Because humans are more difficult to study than chemicals or cells then Wilson calls the social sciences the "hard" sciences. It seems therefore that behavioral economics should be the way to go. And as Wilson says, it will be very hard going. It often seems to me though that a good salesman knows more about human reactions in many economic situations than do economists.

Thanks to the new book Thinking Fast and Slow, we know that humans have these two ways of processing information: fast and slow. As consumer lawyers we know that consumers as a general rule do not read through an entire sales contract before they sign and purchase, even with very expensive purchases. Under Alabama law the consumers are presumed to have read and understood every word of a contract signed by them. But of course we know they don't and that they rely rather on what the salesperson says. The court holds very hard and fast to this rule. The irony is that in a dispute between two large businesses the court would not hold the purchaser to that standard but rather would let the case proceed with evidence presented outside of the contract itself.

This is likely the usual and regular Iranian hot air about cutting off the straits. But perhaps they're stupid enough to cut off 30% of the world's oil.

What I meant is any disruption beyond a short period. But yes. Certainly some near-term chaos and a quick spike in oil prices. My guess is that all Iranian naval and air traffic in the straits is now tracked down to the smallest dhow. Any mine laying by boat or air would likely be stopped immediately, and any mines could be swept in a matter of days. All tanker traffic would be escorted by combat ships, probably in convoys, eliminating any ship to ship interdiction. Missiles? If they're desperate enough to try, yes, that could be war, most likely an air war. But all USN squadrons have sophisticated anti-cruise missile technology, and if not interdicted, the firing source, ship or shore, can be tracked immediately and destroyed, plus probable strikes against other known Iranian missile sites. The Iranians have to know that the first missile fired against any ship in the Straits will lead to massive retaliation against Iranian military targets. (Unless, of course, Amedinajad is succesful in convincing Chavez to send the in the Venezuelan navy.)

http://www.pandugunawan.com/plutonomy-citicorp-secret-memo-on-capitalism

Car Dealers Minneapolis

Enterprise Car Sales

California New Homes