The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

Come and get it!

This is the MP3 archive of my 21 January interview on WCKG in Chicago -- enjoy!

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Cry me a ****ing river.

Sheriffs are campaigning to pressure Google Inc. to turn off a feature on its Wazetraffic software that warns drivers when police are nearby. They say one of the technology industry's most popular mobile apps could put officers' lives in danger from would-be police killers who can find where their targets are parked.

Tough ****.

The cops have cameras in their cars now that automatically scan license plates and, in some cases, driver faces.  There are more cameras all over the place that cities -- yes, the cops in cities -- monitor and again, use computers to play "facial recognition" games with.

There's a reason it's called a public space -- if you do something there anyone who cares to can see you're there and it's perfectly legal to state you are.

This conundrum was created by the cops, who are more interested in theft from citizens because of an arbitrary speed that someone is traveling at, often coupled with deceptive signage or intentional traps, than safety.  That's why they furtively hide with their little radars and lasers.

Oh, in Florida they tried to make alerting oncoming drivers by flashing your headlights illegal.  A motorist was arrested and sued the county -- and a judge stated that using headlights to communicate in this fashion was speech protected by the US Constitution.

Waze needs to tell these Sheriffs to go***** up a rope.  If they don't want their locations marked on roadways they can stop hiding in the shadows and shooting lasers at people.

The use of such an app to warn people is free speech.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

It seems rather simple to me....

For the better part of a year, the worlds of health-care finance and health-care politics have been scandalized by the specialty drug called Sovaldi. The $84,000 cost for a course of treatment of this hepatitis-C cure was said to reveal that pharmaceutical prices were irrational or abusive; that markets were helpless to respond; and that, absent government intercession, this new wave of complex biological therapies would bankrupt the nation.

Then, this winter, all of a sudden, discipline and competition arrived. The response has largely come in the form of new hep-C medicines and pharmacy-benefit managers, or PBMs, a kind of quasi-insurance company that purchases medications in bulk from drug makers, negotiates prices and oversees patient drug plans.

Really?

Gee, that seems to me to be market power.  And while you can argue from one side that this improves competition there's an equally-powerful argument that it destroys an inherent part of competition -- choice.

After all, closed formularies and similar things are all about destroying choice and playing favorites.

The real question is why we have this debate at all -- and the answer to that question is that we have allowed pharmaceutical companies to practice disparate pricing and control of redistribution by people who bought said drugs.  That is, restraint of trade.

See, that's supposed to be illegal.  The "trump" that is played by these firms is that counterfeit drugs would be bad (dangerous), and that's true.  But that simply militates that counterfeits should not be allowed; it says exactly nothing about you buying something (legitimate) and then reselling it.

Never mind CVS itself, which claims to fill one in five prescriptions nationwide. That, it would seem to me, pretty-much defines "market power."

And this is where the problem comes in. I've got personal experience with an early version of this when an employee of mine a couple of decades ago had our health insurer yank a drug she had been on for a good long time out of their formulary without notice to her -- or me.  This was discovered when she was met with a demand for several hundred dollars to refill a script without any foregoing notice -- in other words, without the opportunity for her to talk to her physician first and find out if there was an equal or better alternative, and if not for her (or I) to petition for a waiver.

I managed to resolve the problem but not without a lot of yelling, most of it centered on the outrageously unfair failure to provide reasonable notice to anyone that this was about to take place.

Then there's this problem:

In January, CVS turned around and made Harvoni and Sovaldi the preferred hep-C treatments on its own PBM formularies. Both PBMs almost certainly received concessions on list prices in return for offering one therapy in lieu of competitors, though details haven’t been disclosed.

And therein lies the problem -- are these therapies equivalent in performance and, may I ask, who decides?

This isn't really competition, in my opinion.  Competition happens when individual consumers make choices and by doing so provide incentives for better outcomes all around -- including financial outcomes for everyone.

Being forced under pain of not being "covered" isn't choice, it's use of force and while it might provide a cost benefit that benefit may come with material (and undisclosed!) costs to the user, in this case effectiveness.  After all, isn't the question who decides effectiveness, and isn't divorcing that decision from the person who takes the medication inherently dishonest?

I think so.

Next, shouldn't we be talking about the root of this, rather than simply pumping drugs?

About half of all Americans suffer from one or more chronic conditions such as high cholesterol, diabetes or asthma.

Half?!

Yeaaaah.  Some of that is self-inflicted -- and forcing society (however you define that) to pay for it is obscene.  But the other question becomes this -- how much of that is "generated illness" predicated on a disproved hypothesis?

I speak specifically of the "high cholesterol" meme -- when we now know that the lipid hypothesis has been disproved?

How many billions are siphoned off from you and to these companies, now with the urging and "management" of companies like CVS/Carmark, predicated on disproved theorems?

Now that's an inconvenient question.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

The usual list of pundits are coming out with their various nostrums about the Greek elections going on right now, and they all focus on one thing -- a debt is a debt, and must be paid (somehow.)

Wrong.

Lending prudence only occurs when the risk of default is present should you extend credit foolishly!

It is beyond question that Greece was extended credit by various members of the EU (and the ECB itself) when it was incapable of paying as agreed under the current economic paradigm in place at the time.

This didn't happen only when Greece "got in trouble", it happened for well over a decade prior; indeed, it can be argued that it occurred on the first first day Greece was part of the Eurozone!

Erecting the middle finger was the right thing to do when Greece first got in trouble and it still is.  Let's remember that the Euro treaties provide no means of forced exit; that is, the members of the Eurozone can refuse to extend further credit to Greece but they can neither force the nation off the Euro nor can they abrogate the duty-free trade access!

When you're spending more than you take in the only sane thing to do is to stop that.  But nothing says you have to pay what you allegedly owe and recourse is strictly defined by the agreement in question.  Virtually all lending to a government is inherently unsecured because there is no property deed given to be held in escrow, as is sometimes the case with private lending arrangements.

In other words you simply take the debtor government's word they will pay.

But nothing binds them to pay.

Even if their Constitution allegedly binds them, Constitutions can be changed through entirely lawful process.

What Greece should do is repudiate the debt.  All of it.  If they need to vote through a change to their Constitution to do that, then do so.  This will immediately cut off their access to further credit but that's good, not bad.

You cannot get out of debt by borrowing more money.  The two options to get out of debt are to pay it down and erect the middle finger toward the creditors.  In the case of a sovereign nation that cannot pay the correct choice is often to erect the middle finger; after all, the other alternative, to run said "primary surplus", requires cutting spending at least as much and nearly always more than does repudiation!

Give the Eurozone and ECB this Greece -- they have it coming:

smiley

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

If only, the lament goes:

In predominantly African-American neighborhoods of U.S. cities, far too many killers have gotten away with far too many crimes for far too long, fueling a disastrous murder epidemic. Solving these murders and other serious crimes of violence in black communities should be a top goal for law enforcement—and it deserves to take priority over much more widely discussed issues such as racial profiling and the excessive use of force by police in black neighborhoods, from Ferguson to Staten Island.

Ah, but you see choking and shooting unarmed men is easy.  It requires no courage, no thought and certainly no "policing."  It's simple -- choke him or shoot him.  The End.

Now take a person wanted for murder.  That's a different matter.  Now there's risk -- the suspect might shoot back! So what do we do then?  Why, we throw a bomb wherever the suspect might be (note, not "is known to be") or, if that's inconvenient then you burn the place to the ground (Waco anyone?)

Consider this -- nearly every time someone is wanted, even for murder, they can be easily captured without violence.

Why?  Because damn few people can remain "switched on" forever and most thugs aren't "switched on" at all.  The suspect comes out, goes to the store for a six pack of beer, and oops -- he leaves his rear unguarded.  Cop steps out from behind him, with another cop at an elevated location with a bead on him and the cop behind him says in a nice loud voice: "Put up your hands, you're under arrest -- and oh by the way, a police sniper has a nice red dot on your chest!"

If the suspect turns or tries to go for a gun, he gets shot -- and that's perfectly justified.  Such a capture scenario also has a near-zero chance of harming anyone else -- like innocent people in the vicinity.

But that takes time.  You have to think out the scenario, figure out where to put the officers, stake the place out and generally use your head.  You have to do police work, in short, with the key word being work.

So instead you throw bombs.  You shoot people "preemptively."  You charge in with 20 officers in a "breach", all in body armor with guns at-the-ready and if anything moves, you shoot it whether it's the suspect going for a weapon or it's a grandmother who has absolutely nothing to do with the raid -- in what might be the wrong house.

See, the real problem with inner-city policing is that handing out tickets by the tens of thousands for having an open beer in the street is trivially easy while running down murderers, assault perpetrators and rapists is hard.

You also don't make any money for the city running down murderers and rapists while writing bull**** tickets by the tens of thousands makes the city millions of dollars -- and of course, we know all about those cop pensions and the need to fund them, right?

Yeah.

Impunity for murder,******and serious assault exists because the cops have demonstrated that they are fundamentally lazy and a bunch of cowards, and are either mentally incapable or unwilling to expend the effort to run down, stake out and peacefully arrest these predators.

They all deserve to be fired -- but until the public as a whole stands up and demands their firing I'll settle for shunning any that have not individually and personally demonstrated that they do not fit that general mold.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
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 reproduced 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 or for commercial use.

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.