AttilaRebak: Media

Decades of Bad Energy Policy Left Oil Markets Vulnerable to Iran Shock

Attila Rebak — Wed, 20 May 2026 08:01:55 GMT

One of the recurring themes in my writing is that economic fragility often builds quietly for years before a crisis suddenly exposes it.

Energy markets are a good example. What appears on the surface as a geopolitical shock is frequently the delayed consequence of much older investment distortions, regulatory incentives, and capital allocation decisions.

My latest essay, published by AIER’s The Daily Economy, explores how years of suppressed fossil-fuel investment and regulatory obstacles to nuclear energy have left global oil markets unusually vulnerable to disruption in the Strait of Hormuz.

You can read the full article here:

https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/decades-of-bad-energy-policy-left-oil-markets-vulnerable-to-iran-shock/

Thanks for reading. Let me know your thoughts in the comments. — Attila

If you enjoyed this, explore more articles and ideas on my blog here.

Thanks for reading AttilaRebak! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed on this website are for educational and informational purposes only, and should not be considered as investment advice. The author may hold positions in the stocks mentioned on this website. The author of this website is not a licensed stockbroker or financial advisor. Nothing contained herein should be construed as a recommendation to buy, hold, or sell any securities or financial products. Always seek the advice of a financial advisor and do your own independent research before making any trade or investment decisions.

We do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information on this website. Such information is provided “as is” without warranty or condition of any kind, either express or implied. Past performance may not be indicative of future results. This website could include inaccuracies or typographical errors.

We are not liable or responsible for any damages incurred whatsoever from actions taken from information provided on this website, including financial losses. Since all readers who access any information on this website are doing so voluntarily and of their own accord, any outcome of such access is understood to be their sole responsibility. In no event shall we be liable to any person for any decision made or action taken in reliance upon the information provided herein.

This content is published by a private individual who is not a regulated investment firm, investment adviser, or financial intermediary under MiFID II or any applicable EU or Hungarian financial services legislation. This publication does not constitute a financial promotion, investment research, or a personal recommendation within the meaning of applicable law. References to specific financial instruments, funds, or companies are for illustrative and informational purposes only and do not constitute a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security or financial product. European investors should be aware that certain financial products referenced in this content may not be available for direct purchase in their jurisdiction due to applicable regulations, including MiFID II PRIIPS requirements, and should consult a regulated financial adviser before acting on any information contained herein.

Someone Always Knows First

Attila Rebak — Wed, 13 May 2026 04:09:57 GMT

The latest piece I wrote for Mises Wire explores a question that should concern anyone who believes markets are supposed to transmit real economic information.

What happens when prices stop reflecting economic reality and start reflecting political access?

The article begins with a remarkable sequence from April 2025: a multimillion-dollar options trade placed minutes before the White House unexpectedly paused tariffs, triggering one of the largest market rallies since 2008. Similar patterns appeared repeatedly around major geopolitical and policy announcements.

But the deeper issue is not simply insider trading.

The real problem is that when governments gain the power to move entire industries and markets with a single announcement, political foreknowledge itself becomes one of the most valuable assets in finance. Prices no longer communicate only information about businesses, consumers, and economic conditions. Increasingly, they communicate information about proximity to political power.

That does not merely corrupt individual trades. It corrupts the price system itself.

The article also connects these developments to Friedrich Hayek’s insight that prices are fundamentally mechanisms for communicating dispersed knowledge across society.

You can read the full article here:

Someone Always Knows First

Related essays:

I hope you enjoy the new piece.

Thanks for reading. Let me know your thoughts in the comments. — Attila

If you enjoyed this, explore more articles and ideas on my blog here.

Cover photo: Carol M. Highsmith, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Thanks for reading AttilaRebak! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Disclaimer

The Market Finds a Way

Attila Rebak — Sat, 09 May 2026 11:21:13 GMT

Today, my new article was published in the Mises Institute’s Mises Wire.

The piece explores how financial regulation repeatedly reshapes markets in unintended ways, particularly through the rise of private credit after the post-2008 regulatory wave. What regulators often describe as “shadow banking” may be less a story of greed and more an example of markets adapting to constraints through decentralised discovery and entrepreneurial adjustment.

At the same time, the article does not dismiss the risks accumulating inside private credit markets. The central argument is that many of today’s vulnerabilities stem not simply from deregulation, but from years of distorted price signals created by artificially cheap money and intervention in credit markets.

You can read the full article here:

The Market Keeps Escaping

Thanks for reading! Let me know your thoughts in the comments. — Attila

If you enjoyed this, explore more articles and ideas on my blog here.

Thanks for reading AttilaRebak! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Disclaimer

Another step in a longer story: from 1971 to today

Attila Rebak — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 07:56:01 GMT

Over the past few months, I have been exploring a question that keeps coming back in different forms: how do large economic processes unfold over time, often invisibly, until their consequences become impossible to ignore?

My latest article, published by the Mises Institute, looks at one such process. It focuses on the events set in motion in 1971 and how their effects continue to shape today’s financial system in ways that are rarely discussed explicitly.

This piece is not a standalone argument. It is part of a longer thread. On my blog, I have explored the same dynamics in greater depth through a three-part series that examines how free markets coordinate, how artificial booms emerge, and how the eventual unwinding unfolds.

What I find increasingly interesting is not any single event, but the persistence of the process itself. Once set in motion, these mechanisms tend to run much longer than most expect, and their consequences often appear far from their original cause.

If you have been following my recent writing, this article may help connect some of those dots.

You can read the full piece here:

What 1971 Set in Motion

Thanks for reading! Let me know your thoughts in the comments. — Attila

If you enjoyed this, explore more articles and ideas on my blog here.

Thanks for reading AttilaRebak! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Writing About AI, Economics and Fear

Attila Rebak — Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:01:14 GMT

A few weeks ago, I wrote an essay on artificial intelligence and employment built around a simple but often misunderstood economic principle: Say’s Law.

My aim was not to deny that technological change can be disruptive. It clearly can. Entire professions may shrink or disappear. Skills that once guaranteed security can suddenly become obsolete. What I wanted to explore instead was a deeper question. Do the fundamental laws of economics stop operating when technology becomes frighteningly powerful?

My answer was no.

If production ultimately creates the means for demand, then innovation does not merely destroy jobs. It also reshapes opportunities. History suggests that while adjustment can be painful, the long-term story of technological progress is not one of mass unemployment but of transformation.

Recently, I was invited to adapt this argument for publication on Mises Wire. The editorial process was illuminating. Writing for a broader audience required sharpening the narrative, simplifying the mechanism, and focusing more directly on the policy implications of technological fear.

And in doing so, I realised that the most interesting part of the AI debate may not be technological at all.

The real uncertainty lies in how societies respond to disruption.

When people worry about robots taking their jobs, they are often expressing a deeper anxiety about instability and loss of control. Political systems tend to respond to these anxieties with interventions designed to slow, manage, or redistribute the effects of change. Yet history also shows that such responses can unintentionally weaken the very adjustment processes that allow economies to adapt and grow.

In this sense, the discussion shifts from pure economic logic to political economy. The question is no longer only whether markets can absorb technological shocks, but whether institutions will allow them to do so. Trust in spontaneous coordination, entrepreneurial discovery, and the flexibility of prices and wages becomes crucial.

Artificial intelligence may indeed transform labour markets in ways we cannot fully anticipate. But the long-term outcome will depend not only on algorithms and productivity gains but also on the frameworks within which individuals and firms are allowed to respond.

For readers interested in this line of thought, the original Substack essay explores the theoretical foundations of the argument in more detail. A shorter, more policy-focused adaptation has now been published on Mises Wire.

You can read the original essay here:
Can Economic Laws Debunk the AI Job Apocalypse?

And the adapted version here:
The Robot Won’t Take Your Job. Government Might.

Thanks for reading! Let me know your thoughts in the comments. — Attila

If you enjoyed this, explore more articles and ideas on my blog here.

Thanks for reading AttilaRebak! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Disclaimer

A Conversation with Tim Price and Paul Rodriguez

Attila Rebak — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 09:00:39 GMT

From time to time, something happens that genuinely surprises you.

Recently, I had the privilege of appearing as a guest on the State of the Markets podcast hosted by Tim Price and Paul Rodriguez.

To say that I was surprised by the invitation would be an understatement.

I have followed Tim’s work for many years. In fact, I read his book Investing Through the Looking Glass more than a decade ago. His writing and thoughtful advocacy for value investing and sound money have influenced many investors worldwide. When I received the invitation to join the podcast, my first reaction was to wonder whether it might be a prank.

It was not.

And it was a real honour.

During the conversation, we explored many of the ideas that I often write about here. One theme we discussed was how Austrian economics changes the way investors think about uncertainty.

Modern finance often gives the impression that risk can be measured precisely and managed with elegant mathematical tools. The Austrian perspective is more humble. It reminds us that the future is fundamentally uncertain and that investors must rely on judgment rather than formulas. That way of thinking naturally leads many investors toward sound money, long-term thinking, and assets such as gold that do not depend on promises made by financial institutions or governments.

What I enjoyed most about the discussion was that it was not a typical market commentary. Instead, it was a broader conversation about ideas. Ideas about economics, incentives, and the intellectual foundations of investing.

Those are the topics that first drew me toward the Austrian school many years ago, and they remain central to how I think about markets today.

If you enjoy discussions about Austrian economics, value investing, and sound money, you may find the episode interesting.

You can listen to the full conversation here:

Attila Rebak - Investing success with Austrian School Economics

Finally, I would like to thank Tim Price for the invitation and Paul Rodriguez for being such a thoughtful host. Paul asked excellent questions and made the conversation both engaging and enjoyable. It was a real pleasure to discuss Austrian economics, sound money, and investing with both of them.

Thanks for reading AttilaRebak! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Disclaimer

Why Money Has Value at All

Attila Rebak — Thu, 05 Mar 2026 17:43:17 GMT

I have some exciting news to share: the Mises Institute just published my second article, and I couldn’t be more pleased about it.

When my first piece was accepted, I thought it might have been a fluke. Getting a second one published feels like confirmation that I’m on the right track - and it means a lot to me as a writer still finding his voice in the world of economics.

For this piece, I wanted to write about something that sounds simple but turns out to be surprisingly deep: why does money have value at all?

It’s a question that feels more urgent than ever. We’ve all felt inflation at the grocery store, at the gas pump, and in our rent. Most explanations we hear focus on supply chains or corporate pricing. But the real story goes much deeper — and much further back in history.

In the article, I trace the Austrian answer to this puzzle. I explore Ludwig von Mises’ Regression Theorem, which elegantly explains how money’s value is not a mystery or a government decree - it’s rooted in a chain of human choices stretching back through history. I also look at what this means for today: who actually benefits when the Federal Reserve expands the money supply, and who ends up paying the price.

If you’ve ever wondered why your savings buy less than they used to - and who is on the other end of that transaction - I think you’ll find this piece worth your time.

You can read the full article here:

Why Money Has Value at All

Why Mises’s The Theory of Money and Credit Is Still Important Today

Attila Rebak — Tue, 03 Mar 2026 07:23:05 GMT

I wrote a piece for the Mises Institute on why The Theory of Money and Credit remains relevant today.

More than a century after its publication, Mises’ framework helps us understand inflation not as a statistic but as a monetary process — one that shapes capital allocation, asset prices, and long-term economic distortions.

In a world dominated by central bank activism and narrative-driven markets, revisiting first principles feels increasingly necessary.

You can read the article here:

Theory of Money and Credit (book review)