The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Federal Government]

Oh, it doesn't require the National Guard and sealing the border eh?

The dead woman would like to protest your bullcrap Mr. President and Gov. Perry.

LUBBOCK, Texas—An illegal immigrant who was released by U.S. authorities with a Notice to Appear has been arrested for the alleged murder of a woman and kidnapping of children on U.S. soil. The alleged crimes occurred after the man was released.

The man, Pedro Alberto Monterroso-Navas, entered the U.S. illegally with children and turned himself in to U.S. Border Patrol agents. He was processed and released, as are all illegal immigrants who come as unaccompanied minors or incomplete family units from Central America. The alien is from Honduras.

THIS is what illegal immigration brings to our nation.

THIS IS AN INVASION OF CRIMINALS BY DEFINITION AND THAT INCLUDES, IT APPEARS, CRIMINALS WILLING TO COMMIT MURDER.

SEAL THE BORDER.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

This is what happens when you sit for the encroachment of your fundamental rights and the guarantees in the Constitution -- they continue, right up until you have your wages confiscated on a mere allegation without any due process or hearing.

Don't say you weren't warned -- you were, and you sat on your ass.

The Environmental Protection Agency has quietly claimed that it has the authority to unilaterally garnish the wages of individuals who have been accused of violating its rules. 

According to The Washington Times, the agency announced the plan to enhance its purview last week in a notice in the Federal Register. The notice claimed that federal law allows the EPA to "garnish non-Federal wages to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed the United States without first obtaining a court order." 

Got it?

No court order required.  No due process.

Simply a government agency that claims you owe it money, without any sort of examination of the truth of the original claim.

You deserve this America, because you have repeatedly sat for rank violations of the black letter of our Constitution when they favored whatever you wanted, or when it was "someone else" who was harmed.

Now it's your turn.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

It's simple, really: Call something what it is.

The children have commonly been referred to as “unaccompanied alien children,” or “UACs.” With the new directive, laid out in a June 4 email, both terms will be dropped and replaced with “unaccompanied children.”

They are alien children.

An "alien" is not a citizen.  That's the definition and term of art for it.

They are also "unaccompanied children" but leaving out the fact that they are not citizens or otherwise entitled to be here in this country is intentional, it is intended to prevent honest debate about what we should do as a nation and it is intended to conflate their status with those of children who become unintentionally separated from their parent(s) or who find themselves without a parent due to an unfortunate circumstance despite being citizens (e.g. a child who survives a car crash in which the parent with them is killed.)

There can be no honest debate without accurate use of language.

 

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

I love it when the sharks start eating each other.... it must be a lack of other suitable food, yes?

"Financial markets are euphoric, in the grip of an aggressive search for yield…and yet investment in the real economy remains weak while the macroeconomic and geopolitical outlook is still highly uncertain," said Claudio Borio, the head of the BIS's monetary and economic department.

Right.

There is no macroeconomic outlook that's positive, and geopolitical aspects simply add to instability (they never subtract from it; at best it's neutral.)

Why?

But Mr. Borio said the effectiveness of policies aiming to boost domestic demand—and therefore growth—has been stunted by large overhangs of debt.

And how do you "reduce" said overhang?

You must pay down the debt -- that is, you must run a budget surplus, whether you are a company, an individual household or a nation.

None of them have.

There is an often-repeated lie that corporations have "de-levered."  This is false.  The Fed Z1 shows exactly the opposite; no material contraction of corporate debt ever happened during the crash; indeed, it simply stopped growing for a short while and then started accelerating again.

With the exception of mortgages the same is generally true of households.

The composition of that debt has changed; for example, among households the fastest-growing segment shifted to college student debt.  There are those who will argue that this is really "investment" but that's a lie when the debt is growing faster than the increase in output that it enables.

"Growth" on a permanent basis is impossible.  It is impossible because this planet is finite, both in size and resource.  Therefore the premise of "infinite economic expansion" is a false one; that we have busily worked toward filling in the open space and consuming the resource on an unbalanced basis, effectively draining the batteries that took millions of years to charge, means that we are in effect participating in a giant ponzi scheme.

Further:

Returning to normal monetary policy too slowly could also be dangerous for government finances, the BIS warned. "Keeping interest rates unusually low for an unusually long period can lull governments into a false sense of security that delays the needed consolidation," it said, as the glut of cash encourages cheap government borrowing.

It's more-basic than that.

I recently had an interesting conversation with a good friend that pointed out how crazy people are, generally, when it comes to this matter.  People simply don't think about it and thus don't get it.

Reality is this: All deficit spending simply dilutes your purchasing power, and as such when looked at from a perspective of  everyone in the economy it is a net wash at best, not a positive.

In other words if you deficit spend to provide someone with health care the cost of that health care comes out of everyone's hide through depreciation of buying power -- including the person you allegedly "help"!

So let's say I need some expensive medical procedure and have no money.  You "give" me that procedure as the government and do so by running a deficit.  I "get" the procedure but everyone pays for it immediately and on a forward basis in the form of permanently damaged buying power, including me!

In other words by permanently increasing the amount of circulating money and credit to fund that procedure while the percentage of the bill that I see immediately is small (since there are a lot of people in the country) eventually I will almost-certainly get rooked out of more, on balance, than if I didn't get the "benefit".

The other side of the coin is also true, but rarely discussed or admitted to: If you run a budget surplus and pay down debt you add buying power to everyone in the nation.

That's cumulative -- that is, compounded -- as well.

But wait -- you say -- what about all those programs?  Well, I already went over that.  We could eliminate them all, get rid of the medical monopoly crap, and guarantee everyone a decent family income sufficient to immediately and permanently eliminate poverty among US citizens.  At the same time we could run a $400 billion a year surplus, which would result in a gain in purchasing power of a bit under 1% (if measured against private and public debt) or about 2.4% if measured against public debt.  

Drill that into your head folks -- if you had zero gain in salary or wage but we took this step over a 10 year period you would gain 27% in purchasing power -- that is, your real standard of living would go up 27 percent!

Over a 40 year working life the increase with no raise in salary or hourly wage would be an astounding 158%.

And that, by the way, is not corrected for the declining outstanding debt balance, which means this (simple) calculation understates the benefit.

What BIS is saying here is what I've been saying since I started writing on this in 2007 -- deficit spending is in fact worse than a tax in that the damage it does is recurring every single year, where with a tax you can simply stop collecting it any time you'd like.

Wake up folks -- the markets are grossly over-valued compared against the actual economic situation.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

I will say this much -- At any private employer if this was happening everyone involved would be instantly fired.  No ifs, ands or buts, and no apologies either.

It appears, however, that a regional office has reached a new low: Management for Region 8 in Denver, Colo., wrote an email earlier this year to all staff in the area pleading with them to stop inappropriate bathroom behavior, including defecating in the hallway.

Pleading?

And you wonder what the government does with your money?

They pay people to pretend to work who are actually taking a crap in the hallway.

As I have documented with simple arithmetic as much as 3/4 of the funds spent on various programs are in fact stolen through grift, fraud and simple abuse.

Our government has no legitimacy whatsoever on any sort of analytical basis.  

We deserve what we get from our government because we tolerate this sort of thing and do not insist that everyone involved be fired instantly, forfeiting all benefits on a permanent basis, and that this sort of outrageous conduct be met not with a wink, nod or plea for people stop but rather with indictment and prosecution.

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.