The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

Still think you have "freedom" eh?  Still think you're the actual parents of your children, and that you should be the ones making decisions about their lifestyle and heatlh?  Or are you simply where all the liabilities reside for the decision to have them, while the choices belong to someone else -- you know, like a slave?

Police have rejected criticism of their search for a five-year-old boy with a brain tumour removed from a UK hospital by his parents against medical advice.

Ashya King was found in Malaga on Saturday and his parents arrested, following an international search.

His father Brett King defended his actions in a video posted on YouTube, saying there had been a "ridiculous chase".

Hampshire Police said medical advice was that Ashya was in "grave danger".

The parents, it turns out, wanted their kid to be treated using a therapy not offered by the UK's socialized medical services.  Specifically, they wanted to use proton beam therapy rather than what the UK wanted to use (effectively gamma radiation.)  The difference is that proton beam therapy is a more-targeted form of radiation than gamma.  Both are of the same general type, and there is much dispute as to whether proton therapy is as effective in specific cancers.  Then again there's plenty of argument over whether radiation therapy actually "works" (that is, does less harm and good) in these cases to begin with.

Brain cancer sucks, by the way.  The most-effective means of getting rid of a cancer is to (as you'd expect) cut it out with a knife.  That's often impossible when the growth is in the brain, and it's ineffective when the cancer has spread, since in that case you generally can't get it all, and if you don't get it all you've only changed the time before the inevitable -- and usually not by much either.

But this case, as with the case of Justina Pelletier, shows that the government believes that children are in fact their property.  Let us not forget that in Justina's case the state finally came to the conclusion that they were wrong and the parents (and their advocates in the medical system) were right.  That is, they effectively admitted to kidnapping her, in retrospect.

So who went to prison for that?  Nobody, and nobody will either.  Justina, after a year of this, actually had custody of her formally awarded to the state.  

And what is going to happen in this case?  The parents have been arrested and will be extradited back to the UK and, of course, have been forcibly separated from their child.

Doesn't this tell you exactly what sort of relationship the state recognizes -- or doesn't, as the case may be -- when it comes to your children?

We're not talking about a situation here where two parents disagree and someone has to make a decision of some kind (e.g. in the instance of a divorce.)  These are both cases where an intact family disagrees with what a state actor believes about a child born to that family.  As soon as that happens you discover that the state in fact has claimed ownership of that child.

That's utterly outrageous -- but it in fact happens every day and nobody has done a thing to stop it.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

You're an idiot.

Yeah, you've raised your terror threat.

You said you won't "appease", but in fact you do and have -- and will.

Further, you think that banning mere speech and ideas will in some way address this issue, and that Islam generally doesn't support the sort of activity that is going on over in the Middle East today.

You're wrong on all counts.

First, speech is how we resolve differences peacefully.  The solution to offensive speech is not to ban or even criminalize mere speech.  It is to expose those who are idiots to the ridicule of other speakers, allowing both to speak provided neither turns to violence.  

Now let's deal with the last.  There are nutjobs in all religious practices.  We just heard of a new one in the Christian community; a so-called "minister" who thinks that little girls are his sexual playground.  He's not the first and won't be the last, just as we've had Christian nutjobs who think shooting doctors is their "right" because those physicians provide a procedure they disagree with.

I'm sure there are Jewish nutjobs too.

Here's the difference: Christians who are not nutjobs are the first ones to line up and demand that anyone committing murder or sexually abusing children in the name of Christ be indicted, prosecuted and punished for their crimes.

So out of those billion allegedly peace-loving Muslims where are the immediate and loud demands for those who are perverting the Muslim religion to be similarly prosecuted and punished?

There's a stunning silence coming from the Mosques and Imans in this country. Indeed, among all of them around the world there is an utterly outrageous silence coming from what is billed as The Great Religion of Peace in the wake of these atrocities -- a silence that has been utterly deafening since long before 9/11!

Let's not forget that cutting off Foley's head is hardly the first time these animals have taken to such acts.  How short our memories are these days.... Nick Berg anyone?

And let's not forget that these same people held a dam right near Mosul; they could have easily blown it up (precision and skill are not required; just lots of explosives), murdering many and destroying huge portions of the city below.  But that would have been disastrous to their PR in the region; after all, killing the very people who are part of your caliphate, whether they consent or not, isn't very good for your reputation among those in the area.

Murdering a western journalist on camera, however, is free from that perspective -- and the reaction they get from us is vastly greater.  Consider this: These same animals have murdered dozens if not thousands of Iraqi and Syrian citizens -- and soldiers -- over the last few months.

We're far more outraged about one journalist being beheaded than we are about dozens or even hundreds of Iraqi and Syrian women and children being raped and murdered....... right?

Maybe we ought to be doing a bit of reflection here, and this is in no way a cheap shot at Foley or his family.  Rather it's one at all of us, myself included.  It's one thing to be nonchalant about Syrian military members who fall in the line of duty; it sucks when people die, but soldiers know the risk going in and they choose to serve their country, cognizant that they may make the ultimate sacrifice in doing so.

Civilians that are brutalized for sport are another matter entirely, and it shouldn't matter who or where they are, or what color their skin is.

This isn't a new issue for America and Americans.  Anyone remember Rwanda during Clinton's Presidency?  Betcha you don't, but you damn well should.  How outraged were you while somewhere around 3/4 of a million people were shoved in the hole, with most of them murdered over the space of just a few weeks?  Was the lack of outrage and reaction in America a function of it not being on TV, or was it the color of their skin and economic status, along with the party of the President at the time that led you to look away?  The reaction of Americans to that event could be best described as "let's have a beer!

We have a problem in this country as does Britain when it comes to these sorts of issues.  Peaceful religious groups don't sit silently while some nutjob group co-opts their alleged God and commits murder and mayhem in his name.  Armed aggression for the purpose of subjugation, irrespective of who's doing it and why, whether it be ISIS over in the Middle East or our alleged peace officers pointing firearms at peaceful protesters, is outrageous no matter who's doing it and what their claimed justification might be.

At the core of appeasement is our refusal to call things what they are.  Pointing a gun at a peaceful protester is felony assault. Killing someone because they won't pray as you demand is murder.  Shoving 800,000+ people in the hole in the space of three months is genocide, an act that was in that case (Rwanda) preceded by (surprise surprise!) the disarming of the general population; after all, it's much harder to shove someone in a ditch and hit them with a shovel if they have a gun!  Running over a bicyclist because you're keying a text message in your car is manslaughter.  And flying an aircraft into a military installation on purpose, when the evidence shows that a foreign government provided both logistical assistance and money, is an act of war.

Wake up America -- Britain apparently has refused to, but we still can.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Amazing crap coming from this man.

DOHA (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah said terrorism would soon spread to Europe and the United States unless it is quickly dealt with in the Middle East, the Saudi state news agency reported late on Friday.

The king made the statement during a reception for foreign ambassadors held in Jeddah.

So Mr. Abdullah, may I politely ask why are you not in prison -- or dead?

See, there's this wee section of the report in 9/11 that nobody wants to talk about, and has been redacted.  It claims that your nation and its consulate network in the United States not only helped fund the 9/11 hijackers it also provided logistical support for them.

Now maybe that's true and maybe it's not.  I suspect it's true.  It's also been actively suppressed from public view, so while we know the gist of the claims we don't know the exact details.

Gee, why is that Mr. Abdullah?  And more to the point, when you talk about stopping those evil terrorists are you prepared to begin with yourself?

Just askin'.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2014-08-30 09:05 by Karl Denninger
in Musings , 266 references
 

Gee, Fox News, the obvious is worth a report?

Fifty years after the “war on poverty” was first waged, there are signs a new offensive is needed.

Newly released Census data reveals nearly 110 million Americans – more than one-third of the country – are receiving government assistance of some kind.

The number counts people receiving what are known as “means-tested” federal benefits, or subsidies based on income. This includes welfare programs ranging from food stamps to subsidized housing to the program most commonly referred to as “welfare,” Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

A new offensive is needed eh?

How about actually launching one instead of pretending?

I'm quite serious.

See, I count some $2,239 billion as spent welfare and other social spending in the last year's Federal budget (this year is not quite done yet, but I suspect it will be higher by a hundred billion or two.)  CATO says that in many states sitting on one's ass pays as well as a $20/hour job.  The left says that if we raised the minimum wage then people would work instead of sit on their ass (really?

As millions still rely on government assistance programs, technology and automation have eliminated jobs many Americans used to do with a high school diploma. The challenge for policymakers is helping the economy adjust.  

Nonsense.  Technology did no such thing; indeed, it did the opposite.  Technology advances productivity which means you spend less time and effort in labor for a given output.  That's good, not bad, and the fruits of that progress should belong to everyone!

Those jobs cited still exist -- in China, Bangladesh, India and Vietnam.  They exist there rather than here because we destroyed purchasing power and played games with trade, labor, environmental and monetary policy, thereby making it possible and profitable for that sort of offshoring to take place.

If these firms actually had to produce here or pay wage and environmental parity tariffs they would produce here instead.  And if the law was actually enforced related to monopoly and cartel practices along with the special exemptions being removed in the medical and educational systems (among others) there would be no need for deficit spending at all and thus the destruction of said purchasing power would not have taken place.

We could reverse this, of course.  As I noted in my cited piece we could easily guarantee no citizen lives in poverty, we could remove the need and desire for Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, Social Security and similar -- since nobody would be in poverty.  At the same time we would have a $400 billion a year surplus, not one dime cut from military spending and we could cut all federal taxes by 30%!

It sounds impossible, doesn't it?  Well, it probably is -- to get all of that anyway, or at least as simply as I described.  

After all as I noted originally adverse selection sounds damn good when you just get a check for drinking beer, yes?  So yeah, I get it that we'd have to not do it quite that way, but here's the thing -- if we shut down the so-called "free trade" game, reversed the monetary destruction of purchasing power, collapsed asset (read: housing, among other!) and other retail prices and then deleted all those programs, what would be the result?

Well, first, all that production would have to come back here.  That means jobs.

Second, capital asset prices would collapse.  That means rents and prices for housing collapse, which in turn means you don't need nearly as much to live on.

And thus we'd get rid of all that social spending and people would have to get off their ass and go to work.  But there would be work, including unskilled work.  Yes, it wouldn't pay a lot, but it would pay enough.  It used to, and it still should -- and will if we quit allowing certain industries to rip us off wholesale.

As just one example medical pricing would collapse by 90%.  Doubt me?  Go ahead; not only do you have Japan as an example there was a doctor on CNBC the other morning who is taking cash only and getting a lot of Obamacare patients despite not taking their insurance.  Why?  Because his full price is so much less than what the so-called "others" want for the same thing that it is actually cheaper to come to him for medical services than to pay the deductible and copays with your Obamacare policy!

What nobody asked on that segment, which appalled me, was this: Why do you need medical "insurance" at all if you can pay cash for less than your deductible?  Exactly what are you paying a premium for in that instance?  The answer is "nothing"; you're in fact being robbed!

We have answers available folks -- there was in fact just one missing question from that segment on CNBC, just as there is one missing here in the story from Fox News.

The fact is that the only reason we have those "programs" is for the grift and fraud conduit they enable.  They're not intended to actually help people at all, nor do they.  They are simply a means of throwing you a cookie while you're starving as a result of everything else that's going on, and America plays along because most people believe they can get enough of the grift for themselves to stay ahead.

Reflect a bit on that and let me know if you really are getting ahead -- or whether that's just another lie.  If you find it to be the latter, and I believe you will, isn't it time to stop lying to yourself and demand a change?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

I know, I've heard it a dozen times, and some of most-strident are those who appear to be trying to justify their own lack of action -- or maybe they're a Fed thinking that I've got murder, mayhem or some other sort of violence on my mind.

Sorry to disappoint y'all, but that would be nope, nope and nope.

Not only is violence usually pointless (in that you lose rather than win) but in addition it's frequently ineffective, and when it is the harm you wind up with is immense.  But this doesn't mean there's nothing you can do; quite to the contrary.

The US supermarket chain Market Basket has agreed to sell to a majority stake to former boss Arthur T Demoulas, ending a months-long dispute.

In announcing his purchase, Mr Demoulas told workers, who had gone on strike in July to protest against his firing, "You are simply the best".

The 70-plus stores belonging to the chain are mostly located in the northeastern United States.

It was estimated the company was losing $70m (£42m) a day during the strike.

Late on Wednesday, Mr Demoulas announced that he had reached an agreement to purchase the 50.5% of the company he did not control from a rival faction controlled by his cousin, Arthur S Demoulas, for $1.5bn.

Remember these guys?  The supermarket was known for having low prices and excellent product.  A family feud led the much-loved CEO to be deposed, and the result of that was a strike by the workers and a boycott by the general public.

They didn't burn anything, they didn't destroy, they didn't loot and they didn't assault anyone.  What they did do was boycott, strike and essentially shut the place down.

Note this well: They won.  Legally and peacefully.

The Boston Globe has spared no time in trying to pan this as a "one off", and that should not surprise -- after all, should such peaceful and lawful tactics take hold just think about all the things we could change.

Hospitals charging 10x a reasonable price for procedures and tests?  Well, how's that gonna work when there are no patients, no employees in the hospital, and pickets around the building 24x7?

Universities screwing our kids with crippling loans and dead-end alleged "degrees"?  Well, how's that gonna work when there are no employees in the cafeteria, nobody is manning the register in the bookstore, there are no students in the lecture halls and again, there are pickets around the periphery of the campus?

Jackbooted "cities" (cough-Ferguson-cough!) that issue 3 arrest warrants per household and about $150 per-capita in fines annually, then point firearms at peaceful protesters and journalists?  Well, how's that gonna work when nobody shops in the town any more, none of the city employees show up to work and there are peaceful pickets around city hall and the courthouse 24x7?

Or how about Boston after the marathon bombing?  Instead of cowering at SWATted-up cops looking for a wounded kid in a boat, violating constitutional rights left, right and center what if the response was for every citizen in the town to boycott every single business inside city limits until the city council and the entire police department resigned and were replaced through a peaceful, lawful election?  How long do you think the city and cop shop could hold out when the streets were empty and the cash registers silent?

Hmmmm..... four places we, the people could really do something right here and now, couldn't we?  All legal and peaceful too.

So yeah, it's real important to make sure nobody gets any wild ideas -- like the fact that all government exists only with the consent of the governed, whether that "government" be a 71-store grocery chain, a university, a hospital or a city.

Let's not forget that the striking workers at those stores put themselves at considerable economic risk.  They weren't working during that time and they weren't getting paid.  Further, and far more importantly, this wasn't a matter of a couple of days where you could simply shift your economic activity on both sides -- it went on for roughly three months.

“It was an unprecedented situation, and it defies everything we thought we knew about how businesses are run and who has the power,” said Daniel Korschun, a fellow at the Center for Corporate Reputation Management at Drexel University. “Many scholars, myself included, are eating crow right now.”

Not me.

You always have the power and there are a lot of people who try to tell you otherwise because they know damn well that all government, no matter whether its a corporation, a city or a nation, only exists with the consent of the governed.  It is only through your willful consent that the outrages perpetrated against you can and do continue.

If you're willing to refuse consent, accepting that this will come with cost, through peaceful and lawful action, you win.  It may take time, indeed it may take much longer than you think, but you will win because without the patient there is no hospital, without the shopper there is no store, and without the taxpayer earning an income to be taxed there is no government.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
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.