So there is a problem with a strict logical view, or Austrian view, of economics. First, to say what is good, the logic of economics is a really good way to go through life, to understand decision making, what might happen and why it might. It is a fantastic backbone for almost anything having to do with public policy. It makes sense, it is easily explicable, doesn't require a lot of math. These are all good things. The problem, though, is that very often the predictions it might make don't end up being reflected in the data that comes out, and rather than asking themselves why, they basically revert to "Mises was right before WWII and if you give it enough time, he will be right again." You know what, he might be, but it is the same bullshit logic of ten year plans that you see in most fringe economics, be it Austrian or Marxist. It is also why Hayek remains an important economist while Mises does not, and Rothbard is a crank. That reason is that there is no sense of urgency to figure out what is going on when data and information do not correspond to theory. There is simply no empirical element, and that makes it much less useful than it could be. If you contrast that with overly empirical economics, the kind of shit that tells you that the ratio of people farting to GDP growth and then suggests farting as policy, Austrian economics might win. At least it isn't based on correlation masquerading as causation, but instead it doesn't try to explain what is actually happening at all.
Sure there is. If the question is between whether risks tend toward inflation or recession, they can also be balanced. In structuring a portfolio, if you took the point of view that risks were highly tilted toward inflation, and went into the commodities market, you would be very poor now. Don't try to retcon every fucking person in this thread getting it wrong. And rather than fixating on lumber, look at food commodities. It's the same story. Head and shoulders describes a chart formation, and it is a very common analytical tool commodities traders use. I think it is bullshit, but since they use it, if you are looking at commodity prices, you have to understand it.
And you clearly don't understand what futures do. People didn't get that lumber would be cheaper in June and July. If they did, they wouldn't have been buying July contracts for exorbitant prices.
Seriously, you are not a dumb dude, you are actually pretty smart from what I can tell, but sometimes, especially with this shit, it pays to learn from the experience of people who have been looking at these prices for a long time. And if you have been, you can see when you are looking at a momentum trade in a sector that got hot, and when you are looking at something that is describing a significant fundamental issue.