The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Our Nation DESERVES To Fail

Display list of topics

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-02-22 13:41 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 68 references
 

Email kairia.rocks@gmail.com -- nicely priced, an original piece, paint on canvas.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



2018-02-22 12:47 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 2579 references
[Comments enabled]  

But I will only accept it under one condition.  It's passed as a Constitutional Amendment and is a blanket change to the age of adulthood.

The following language is fine:

The age of adulthood, which shall be for all purposes, federal, state and local, has been determined by the people of the United States to be 21; prior to attaining the age of 21 years any person residing in or a citizen of the United States shall have their rights and responsibilities vest under their two natural parents or legally-appointed guardian(s), subject only to an individual petition for a single person approved by a court of competent jurisdiction.

So, here's what changes if you're not yet 21.

  • You can't own or buy a gun.  You can use a firearm under the direct supervision of your parents (e.g. while hunting, target shooting, etc) however they are legally responsible, criminally and civilly, for your use of same.

  • You cannot vote.  You are not a legal adult, and thus have no franchise until you reach the age of 21 years.

  • You cannot have an unrestricted driver license.  You can have a restricted one, as is the case now for 16 and 17 year olds, which among other things in most states prohibits use of the roads except to and from school from midnight until 5:00 AM.  Oh, and your parents can revoke it too on simple request to the DMV if they don't like how you drive -- or for any other reason.

  • You cannot get married.  You can't contract, and marriage is a contract.

  • You have no right to attend college on your own; your parents or guardian(s) are in sole control of your education.  Your parents have the absolute right to see all your transcripts, disciplinary records and otherwise.  They may enroll or withdraw you from an educational institution as they, not you, direct.  They get to choose where you live while in school, what program (major and minor(s)) you enroll in, etc.  Since there is no right to sexual contact prior to 21 no college will allow co-ed dorms for under-21 students, since doing so would expose them to charges of furthering sexual predators.

  • You have no right to independent medical decisions; that right and responsibility rests with your parents.  No more abortions, birth control, gender-bender stuff ("transitioning", etc) or similar without your parents' consent.  Your medical records, choice of treatment(s) and diagnostics are all the responsibility of your parents along with, of course, paying for same and they have the right to make said decision and be fully informed as to both your medical status and records.

  • The age of sexual consent is 21.  No "Romeo" laws are permitted.  Sleep with someone under 21 and you're a sexual predator and get listed on the offender registry if caught.  If both parties are under 21 then you both get charged and branded for life. You have no ability to consent to the most-awesome power that humans have -- to potentially create life, in short -- you've declared that you're mentally infirm to make serious life-and-death decisions and this is the most serious of said choices an adult can make.  If you can wait until you're 21 to own a gun you can wait until you're 21 to screw.

  • The age of ownership of property is 21.  Your parents are the legal custodians of all your property until age 21, as is the case right now for things like a UTMA account.  This extends to real estate, vehicles, bank accounts, credit accounts and similar.  Since you're not competent to contract you cannot hold title to any property, real or personal, in your own name until you're 21.

  • You lose "Obamacare" coverage under your parents at 21 too.  Not 26.  On the bright side you can buy your own Obamacare policy at 21, with your own money.  If you have any.

  • You cannot work at any "potentially hazardous" occupation until 21.  Today that age is 18; among other jobs you cannot hold are working at a service station convenience store, in any manufacturing or warehousing position, construction, operating machinery, operating a vehicle and similar.  None are available to you until you are mentally competent to judge the risks thereof, which means attaining the age of 21.

  • You do not have to have your parents consent or filings with universities after 21.  FAFSA terminates at age 21, as you are a legal adult.  Prior to that your parents are responsible for paying, but also get to choose.

  • You have a right to live under your parent's roof until 21 and may not independently choose where you live; that decision is theirs.  However, you have the responsibility to follow their rules until 21 as well.  Don't like it?  Too bad -- they can enforce said rules and there's nothing you can do about it.  If you run away or refuse to consent to and live under their rules you can be held legally responsible for that act and forcibly returned or incarcerated until your 21st birthday as "uncontrollable."

  • You cannot join the military until you are 21.  If you're not mentally competent to own a gun you're not old enough to be trained to go off and kill in the name of the United States.  That's simple.

  • You cannot legally drink.  Oh wait, we do that now.

  • You cannot legally buy tobacco or similar products.  A few places do that now, but most draw the line at 18.  It would now be 21 since you're not competent to make the decision at 18.  Getting caught with tobacco would be identical to getting caught with booze -- an offense for which you could face sanction.

And so on.

If you wish you may individually petition a judge to be declared an adult before you turn 21 -- and if successful you individually gain all the rights and responsibilities (including gun ownership, drinking alcohol and similar) of an adult.  Doing so immediately and permanently terminates all rights and responsibilities of your parent(s) or guardian(s) and vests them in you, exactly as would otherwise naturally occur on your 21st birthday.  The government would then issue you formal adult identification, and you could obtain an adult US Passport and state driver license documenting same.

However, no judge may issue any sort of blanket or "batch" order; all such petitions must be individual and delineate the explicit reasons why you are an exception to the Constitutional declaration of adulthood through clear and convincing evidence of your emotional and mental competence.

This is of course by Constitutional Amendment -- the only lawful means by which you can change or abrogate the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment as it stands now.

This, unlike the other 50,000 gun laws, would actually be legal and if passed I suspect nearly everyone in the country would accept it.

I suspect you'd also see a hell of a drop in the birth rate, however....

To all those "kids" marching and cutting class while arguing for a baldly-unconstitutional law: Are you in favor of actually recognizing what you claim to be emotional and mental infirmity by those who are younger than 21 -- or are you a bigot and a liar?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



2018-02-22 10:08 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 138 references
[Comments enabled]  

Hmmm....

It never ceases to amaze me how people will dance around the actual issue when politics are involved.  This is no different -- but interestingly this tangent will probably have some (but small) effect.

I will be strongly pushing Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks! Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue - I hope! - @realDonaldTrump

As I pointed out "ending sale of Bump Stocks" will do little or nothing.

Mental health improvements in the law will do nothing either; there was plenty under existing law to stop the shooting but the Sheriff, DCFS and the FBI all refused to do their jobs.  Just as did the military when it came to the recent shooting in Texas where the shooter had a domestic violence conviction during his service and they never reported it.  Ditto for the kid who shot up the church and had a conviction that was "mis-entered" and would have stopped him from legally buying his guns.

The other problem with "strengthening background checks" -- or any other restriction of this sort is that it does exactly nothing to stop someone from getting one or more guns illegally.  The good news, I suppose, is that most illegal firearms are pistols, simply because that's what criminals prefer (it's damn hard to conceal a shotgun or rifle!)  But then again I'm not sure it matters how you die; whether you're shot by an "evil" black rifle or an "evil" pistol dead is dead.

Finally, the "age 21" thing.  We continue to march down the road of turning adults back into infants for an ever-increasing amount of time.

Are you sure you want to do this America?  You better think long and hard about it, because what's next is that military service is not something an 18 year old should be able to consent to.  In fact, since the military inherently involves training people to use weapons for the purpose of killing (duh!) if you're going to ban gun possession by those under 21 then you must also ban military service for those under 21.

End of discussion.

But let's talk about the gun thing again for a minute.  Banning firearm sales to those under 21 probably would have a small but measurable impact on these sorts of shootings -- but not firearm suicides.  The reason not for the latter is that buying a pistol already requires that you be 21.  Interestingly enough under existing law I can legally give my son or daughter a pistol at 18, but it's worthless since she couldn't buy the ammunition and without ammunition a gun is nothing more than a crude club.

The reason it probably would have some impact on these sorts of mass shooting events is that the psychotropic drugs that I argue are the biggest cause of these events stop having that bad side effect at 25.  Incidentally they also start working, while for those under 25 they not only don't work they make both suicide and homicide more likely. Well, if the range today of both being able to buy long guns and the prescription of worthless and dangerous SSRIs is 18-25 that's 7 years.  If you put the "buy long guns" age at 21 (as for booze) then it's 4 years.

I would thus expect a modest but real improvement in the mass-shooting rate by crazies.

However, that must be balanced by the fact that (1) said crazies can still get the gun illegally and (2) they can use many other things than guns.  Specifically, the nutjob in the NE killed his mother to get her rifle; if you're a homicidal maniac then so long as you know where one such rifle is and are willing to kill its owner then said owner had better be both prepared and able to kill the nutbag first.  In practical terms this means he better be both armed with a pistol and carrying it all the time.  Second, it does nothing for the nutbag who decides to rent a Home Depot truck (or buy, beg, borrow or steal an SUV) and use that for mass-murder -- nor someone who then chooses to use a gallon of gasoline, or a home-made explosive of some design.  May I remind you that none of this is very hard to do and indeed using a vehicle is trivially easy.

As far as civil liberties go it still makes no sense and it still avoids holding the Sheriff, DCFS and the FBI accountable for their willful, intentional failure to do their job -- which was sufficient under existing law to stop this attack.  The FBI in particular, along with the Sheriff, had multiple opportunities and they were not "missed" -- they were intentionally, willfully ignored.

This ought to lead to firings and criminal prosecution with "sovereign immunity" waived -- and until it does these sort of events will continue to happen because irrespective of what law you write if nobody actually has to enforce said law then nothing will change.

As such I stand firmly opposed; if you want to actually go after the problem and fix it you have to start here.

Oh, and for all the people who advocate "21 to buy guns"?  Let's pass a Constitutional Amendment -- that actually would be legal, as opposed to "another law" that is blatantly UNconstitutional -- and include in it that the right to vote does not vest until 21 either.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

How blatant do you need to be in stealing billions before someone goes to prison?

Let's start with this one:

A Texas woman took a urine drug test after back surgery and was hit with a $17,850 lab bill, according to a Kaiser Health News report.

This was for a set of tests that her health insurer says are worth $100.92 -- but since she was out-of-network she was billed 176 times as much.

Did someone do 176 times as much work?  Did they do any additional work?  Was she told about this before the tests were run?

All answers are no.

How is this not felony grand theft and fraud?  Indeed this sort of crap is an everyday occurrence.

Next up, and at least as bad, is this:

Long considered one of the healthcare industry’s dirty secrets, the Medicare 340B program is under new scrutiny after a major study revealed that “hospitals that save money through 340B program discounts often don’t use those savings to improve care for low-income and underserved patients.” They are padding hospital profits while driving up healthcare costs.

Rather than using those discounts to provide care for low-income people they are instead diverting the drugs bought under that price to full-price patients and in fact absorbed physician private practices to facilitate this.

In other words, hospitals become eligible for 340B from their low-income patients, then expand to satellite facilities in nearby, affluent neighborhoods to make a huge profit on half-off drugs their rich patients’ pay for in full.

How does this not qualify as Racketeering?

These people stole drugs that were provided to them specifically for low-income people, diverting them to higher-paying people.  When that wasn't enough they started buying up private practices to increase the number of patients against whom they could execute the scheme!

C'mon folks, cut the crap.  This isn't "enterprise" or "innovation."

It's theft, fraud, and since it's undertaken with lots of people all conniving to do it it damn well ought to be considered to fit the profile for Racketeering and result in the forfeiture of all of these hospitals, all of these doctor practices and the imprisonment of everyone involved.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-02-21 16:00 by Karl Denninger
in Personal Health , 164 references
[Comments enabled]  

You gotta be kidding me....

"These drugs can have serious side effects, including gastrointestinal bleeding and heart attacks, and are often taken without medical oversight because many products are available over-the-counter," Kaufman said by email. "The attitude that users can choose their own dose regardless of label directions, along with poor knowledge of dosing limits, is associated with exceeding the daily limit."

Of course what do you think the recommendation might be?

"For occasional use, acetaminophen (again in the right dose) is a much safer option and very efficacious as a pain killer," Vogt added. "But we know that many people use NSAIDs for indications other than pain, such as flu, allergies, fever - and there is no medical base that indicates that NSAIDs or acetaminophen are of any use under these circumstances."

Did you read and parse that folks?

Let's recap.

1. Some people ignore the label directions.  There are potential serious side effects from doing so.

2. Therefore we should remove these drugs from the market because some people don't read the label, or intentionally ignore it.

3. But what we should do is have people use a drug that also is worthless for flu, allergies and fever and which, if people also ignore the label on that one, has the very serious side effect of destroying your liver.

Yeah.  We should listen to this jackass.

Not.

How about this: Add something to the label that documents that such drugs are not useful for those common circumstances where people use them but they have no value, along with a strong warning about exceeding the recommended doses.

Naw, that's not nanny-state -- instead we should turn these into prescriptions so you are now forced to spend a metric crap-ton of money to get the Rx for them, plus the pharmacy can then rip you off on the price.

Here buddy, make good use of this:

Suicide by tickerguy

View this entry with comments (opens new window)