The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
2015-08-28 10:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 85 references
 

I ain't skeered of no little tropical storm.

Seriously.

Yes, it's a storm. But it's headed straight for Hispaniola, which is notorious for ripping tropical systems to shreds as a result of terrain.  It's going to suck if you're on that island, as it has for those on Dominica -- but not due to winds, but rather extreme rainfall amounts that produce life-threatening flooding.

I suspect come early next week Florida is going to get swatted with a serious rain event, and the Tampa area, in particular, doesn't need it as it's been flat-out inundated with rain the last month or so.

But unless something dramatic changes in the next few days I don't expect Erika to be much of a bitch when it comes to the United States.

For those in Hispaniola in her path, on the other hand, particularly those who are susceptible to flooding and mudslides, may God be with you.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2015-08-28 07:56 by Karl Denninger
in Other Voices , 242 references
 

Needs no comment as it speaks for itself.....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2015-08-28 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 152 references
 

When you're right -- you're right.

Donald Trump says the fatal shooting of two journalists on live televisionshould not be seen as another example of America’s problem with gun violence.

“This isn’t a gun problem — this is a mental problem,” Trump said on CNN’s “New Day” on Thursday, a day after WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and her cameraman, Adam Ward, were killed in Virginia by a gunman who was fired from the station in 2013. “It’s not a question of the laws. It’s really the people.”

We used to have real no-BS mental institutions where people like this could get actual help.  Yes, some of what happened in those institutions was outrageous -- but not all of it, and some of the people who were institutionalized really did need to be.

We decided, as a society, that we were a "kinder, gentler place."  Unfortunately those who are insane didn't share that change in worldview -- they were and are still nuts.

Further:

Nonetheless, Trump suggested, Flanagan’s victims might have been able to save themselves had they been armed.

“I’m very much into the Second Amendment,” Trump said. “You need protection.”

“You’re not going to get rid of all guns,” he added. “If you tried to do it, the bad guys would have them … and the good folks who abide by the law would be hopeless.”

EXACTLY.

And that's the problem with so-called "gun control" -- the lawbreakers, whether just plain criminal or flatly insane, don't give a damn about the law.  That's the entire point of why we call their acts "crimes"; were they to give a damn the problem wouldn't exist.

It sucks that there is a certain percentage of people who are violent jackasses but you can't change that, nor can you change their willingness to break the law up front, including acquiring weaponry of various sorts.  All you can do is give people the tools to be able to protect themselves if the worst comes to pass -- and the closer the ability to mount a defense is when necessary the better the odds of success.

It is for this reason that I support the original intent of the founders when it comes to firearms and advocate strongly for the 2nd Amendment meaning exactly what it says -- it is your right to keep and bear arms as your conscience directs.  The very premise of a "permit" violates that right and as such those structures and laws are unsupportable as they criminalize acts that harm no person or property.

It is only your abuse of said right, defined as your actual assault, battery or injury to another person or property through other than a legitimate defensive act, that should be considered a crime.

It appears that of the current candidates Trump has come closest, thus far, to staking out that position.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Gee, you don't think this is a singularity, right?

What I discovered was that the world of Ashley Madison was a far more dystopian place than anyone had realized. This isn’t a debauched wonderland of men cheating on their wives. It isn’t even a sadscape of 31 million men competing to attract those 5.5 million women in the database. Instead, it’s like a science fictional future where every woman on Earth is dead, and some Dilbert-like engineer has replaced them with badly-designed robots.

Read the entire article folks -- out of millions of alleged "women" there were perhaps 12,000 actual women on the site.  The rest were fake, robots, or something else.

Now here's the ugly -- there are a whole host of alleged dating sites out there and all of them charge money for at least some of their services.  So here's the question: How many of the "women" on all of those sites are real?

Are there a few?  Sure, and if you're a woman looking for a guy you have a lot of choice.  So for women, perhaps, these sites are a "good deal" -- if you can fight off the animal-style attention that comes from being one piece of meat on the ground in a den full of millions of hungry male lions!

But for men it's a different matter entirely.  Perhaps at one time there was a point to such sites; indeed, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away I did meet a few interesting people on a couple of them.

Is that still possible?

It would appear the answer may well be "No", and thus there is no value in such a venue for ordinary, heterosexual guys -- particularly when you're being asked to pay for it.

This has interesting implications, if and when it gets proved up, for those firms providing these services and charging men for them.  I wonder if anyone has ever asked those firms, especially the publicly-traded ones that own some of these sites, if their alleged "women counts" have been audited to see if they are, well, you know, real women -- that is, what percentage of those alleged "female profiles" actually correspond to someone of the female sex that actually is who she says she is and is actually on the site and active.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Wow...

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Why I Find It Hard To Give A F**k

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.