Felix Salmon posed several questions for David Kocieniewski about his scurrilous article about Scott Irwin and me. And-shockingly!-David Koscieniewski refused to answer a single one. Not. A. Single. One. So if you don’t win that Pulitzer, Dave (and we know that’s what you want, isn’t it?), there’s always the Royal Order of the Weasel ready to be claimed. You should be a runaway. Emphasis on the Runaway!
Instead of actually answering direct questions posed to him, our dear David doubled down on insinuation, innuendo, and ad hominem. That’s our boy: go with what you got, eh?
I will respond more fully later, through multiple channels, but a few comments are in order now.
- Kocieniewski insinuates that I have violated the American Economic Association disclosure guidelines. Fail, Dave. Pure fail. The AEA guidelines require disclosure of any support (financial, in the form of data, etc.) on submissions to peer reviewed publications. I have not submitted any work to a peer reviewed publication that has been supported by any party with an interest in the speculation debate. I told you this during our interview. So what is it? Is David ignorant, stupid, or dishonest? I can’t answer that. Those are all observationally equivalent.
- I responded to all FOIA requests, forwarded to me via the University of Houston’s general counsel’s office, in a timely fashion. Any suggestion to the contrary is false.
- My work for “one of the largest commodity exchanges” had nothing to do with speculation, and occurred after my positions on speculation were public. Years afterwards. Years. As in plural.
- My work for “one of the largest commodity trading houses, Trafigura” occurred years after my positions on speculation were public. Again, years plural. I had no contractual relationship with Trafigura until September, 2013. Um, I testified before Congress on speculation-testimony which gives dear David the faints-in July 2008. You know, five freaking years before. And that’s not even the best part! Trafigura is not a speculator. It is a hedger. It routinely sells massive quantities of futures to hedge its massive quantities of oil transactions. But-correct me if I’m wrong (but I’m not)-Kocieniewski’s article focuses on how speculators drive prices up by buying futures. Hedgers. Speculators. Buy. Sell. Up. Down. Whatever, eh? It’s all the same to our Dave. So again: David Kocieniewski: ignoramus, idiot, or liar? I say again: Observationally equivalent.
- Kocieniewski explicity refers to the fact that “this debate [over speculation] began more than five years ago.” Excuse me, but I wrote my first blog post on this in August, 2006. I know you are math challenged, David (I read your piece on Goldman’s warehouse operations), but using the fingers on your left and right hands, you should be able to cipher that that works out to about 7 years (and about four months, but hey, let’s round down!). So I weighed in on this before “the debate began.” Just call me prescient. But here’s the point: how did my (non-existent) consulting work on speculation years later affect my opinions? Do you have issues with the concept that the cause must precede the effect?
More later. I’m just getting warmed up (spits into palms, old school style).
Thanks again, Felix. The cat caught the weasel.