The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
So What About Kavanaugh?

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.

2018-07-19 08:02 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 225 references
[Comments enabled]  

So yeah, this is what we are told we must embrace.

We must not deride it.

We must not consider it odd, strange, perverted or anything of the sort.

Caitlyn Jenner is pictured at the 2018 ESPY Awards alongside her rumored girlfriend Sophia Hutchins, 21.

The 68-year-old former Olympian sported a black velour knee-length dress with black pumps as she hit the red carpet at the Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles on Wednesday.

Uh huh.

A nearly 70 year old "dating" a 21 year old.  Right.  This is an equals power relationship, right?  Especially when the older is both rich and famous while the younger was apparently first met when a college student.

Oh, and "Sophia"?  Uh...... no, not really.

Two "ladies", right?  Uh, no, those are not two lesbians getting along.

It's two guys folks -- two gay men.  That's what you factually have here.

Oh, and Scott is the age of Bruce's second-youngest child.  Which, I remind you, is a pattern that gay men do frequently exhibit (then again it's not exactly uncommon for heterosexual men to like younger partners either!)

As adults both of these men are free to make whatever choices they wish.  But those of us who have children (say much less just those of us who have no desire to cut off this or that body part) have every right to look at this pair of individuals as well beyond the "ordinary" thing that you often see with some "older dude" dating a younger woman.

I see plenty of that crap around here; 60 year old dudes with a big fat penis extender (in the form of a nice expensive boat) with a 20-ish cute, big-breasted (probably artificial) girl traipsing around on same.  I've even come around a corner in my much more-modest vessel and seen two horizontal snakes playing on the cushions in said go-fast right out in the open.  It's not exactly uncommon but nobody with more than 2 nickels of intelligence to rub together has any trouble identifying what is going on and said fat balding bastard probably stuffed 6 Viagras down his throat too.

How do you deflect comments like "you're a predatory piece of ****" -- or worse?

Claim to be "trans" and thus "protected" from such criticism and people spitting in your direction when they see you.

Well, guess what -- I don't recognize such "protection" and you're a piece of ****, Bruce.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-06-26 06:31 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 134 references
[Comments enabled]  

Grrrrr....

Alecia Gordon is quick to admit that forced drug treatment was a good thing for her son. He was 19 years old when he entered a court-mandated program for the first time. She believes it saved his life.

“If it wasn’t court-ordered, he really might not have survived,” Gordon said.

Mandatory rehab turned out to be a good thing for Gordon’s son, whose only other option was jail time with no treatment at all.

However, many researchers suspect that forcing people into short-term drug treatment programs may not be enough to help them stay sober long term.

This hasn’t stopped U.S. states from expanding the use of involuntary commitments for drug and alcohol addiction. Nor has it slowed the growing number of private rehab programs in the country.

This is the sort of piece that looks "balanced" at first read, but really isn't.

There are certain realities when it comes to addictions of all sorts, and they're ones nobody wants to deal with -- because to deal with this is to acknowledge the underlying motivating factors that result in the problem none of which are simple, easy or neatly-boxed up and packaged.

Let's go for it.

Addiction is a medication mechanism.  Whether the drug in question is carbohydrates (overeating to the point of obesity), alcohol, tobacco or some other sort of recreational pharmaceutical the substance(s) in question are being used to fill a hole in one's psychological make-up that the person in question believes is empty and requires filling.  This sounds obvious but it is simply ignored by most people, especially those close to the person addicted.

Addiction is a mental state, and a mental disorder.  Like all mental disorders it comes in various "strengths."  But the word "disorder" is one that has become stigmatized to the point that nobody will use it in polite company, and worse, it's justified by a huge percentage of the population.  For example the "healthy at any size" body-screamers, who of course are all fat.

Addiction cannot ever be truly "cured" because it's not a disease -- it's a disorder, and we all have some sort of "disorder"; it's what makes humans unique.  This is where the "10 step" programs and similar are right, in that they make clear that one is never actually cured of addiction.  If you know anyone who's gone through them you know that they say right up front that the process begins with saying "I'm X and I'm an alcoholic" (or whatever the issue is.)  You may be an alcoholic who chooses not to drink today, but you're still an alcoholic. Here's the thing nobody wants to talk about: You were always an alcoholic; you just hadn't found the booze bottle yet.

Not all addictions are destructive.  Talk to someone who runs on a frequent basis.  They run when they are healthy, and when they're sick.  They run when their muscles hurt -- because they ran the day before.  They run because, well, they run.  That's addiction, and yet that particular addiction is helpful in many ways; it consumes calories, it improves cardiovascular health, it regulates blood pressure, it improves muscle tone (especially in the legs) and so on.  And by the way, part of the reason a runner runs, once they do it for a while, is that they get high doing it.  I know more than a bit about this, you see.....

You cannot force someone, other than by imprisonment and continual monitoring, to stop doing an addictive thing.  You just can't.  You can lock someone up in a cell and stop them from drinking or using drugs, but that will at best dry them out until they're released.  Addiction is almost-entirely in someone's head, however, so all you've done is made them a dry alcoholic (or drug abuser), which will work right up until they get out of jail.  Until that person wants to change said addictive behavior they won't.  It's that simple.

All of this should inform our thinking on all of this -- but it doesn't, because there's way too much money involved all the way around, and as soon as that happens everything else goes out the window.  This is especially true in an "economy" where compelled extraction is how you make the most (and who you screw in the process is tough crap.)

Look around you.  A third or more of all adults are addicted to fast carbs and are literally eating themselves to death.  They are fat, medically obese and this is doing them material, real harm.  There are zero-drug, zero-surgery ways to address this which anyone can undertake at any time at a literal zero cost.

Get the fast carbs out of your diet entirely.  Period.

But instead we have an entire social movement that says that "being fat is ok", "I'm ok at any size" and similar.  There are laws protecting someone's right not only to be fat but to force other people to pay for the costs of their addiction right up front and "affirm" it; not only can you not "discriminate" against someone as that's called a "disability" you're forced to pay for it too even when it causes them to get diabetes and, ultimately, to have their extremities chopped off, go blind and wind up on dialysis.

This is not a small issue and it screws everyone.

Let's look at the stark reality of this in the form of employment, especially at the lower end.  Let's take two people -- a healthy-weight 30 year old male and a ridiculously obese 30 year old female.

The health costs for the first might be $300/month for a "good" insurance policy.  The cost for the second is more than double that.

So take $300/month or $3,600 a year, the difference in price, and figure it out -- how much does this hit the healthy guy in the wallet?  Well, that's easy -- it's about $1.80/hour since there are 2,000 hours in a work-year (40 hours a week by 50 weeks with two off for vacation.)

Now contemplate this carefully folks -- what's the difference between $10/hour and $11.80?  Close to 20%!

Yet the employer is forbidden by law from offering the fat 30 year old woman $1.80/hour less, or paying the strapping 30-year old guy $1.80/hour more.  He also can't refuse to hire the fat woman on the grounds that doing so inextricably screws the other people who work for him that are not fat.  Indeed he can't even itemize out what the fat people in his or her office cost those who aren't; doing so would be a violation of a number of federal laws.

You think this is hypothetical?  It's not.

When I ran MCSNet we had monthly insurance costs for our employees that had a more than 700% variation from top to bottom.  The people who were younger and healthier got ****ed the worst by this, by far.  There was in fact a $600 per month difference from top to bottom in that cost; put a different way if there were two employees, one with the $100/mo cost and one with the $700/mo cost the guy with the $100/mo cost was literally being ****ed in that he was forced to pay the other person's health insurance premium each and every hour he worked.

Across the entire employee base the average, healthy 20 year old who came to work for me suffered a more than $3/hour wage reduction that was all given to other employees and I could not legally do anything about it because under the law I could neither refuse to hire the less-healthy person, I couldn't even ask about such health issues prior to employment unless they manifestly preventing you from being able to do the job for which you were interviewing and as such I was forced by law to screw the young, healthy person out of that $3+/hour or I would get sued and ruined by the older, fat person, I'd lose and then everyone would be screwed (including me) as they'd all be out of a job.

It's only gotten worse now in that Oamacare and the ratcheting job on health insurance has more than doubled the imputed cost and hidden it even further in through forcing so-called "must take all" policies that do things like insure men against ovarian cancer.  Let me put this in simple terms for you, fit young folks: If you're working for an hourly wage today I guarantee you're being ****ed out of at least $4/hour in pay so the fat older person next you can have health insurance.

That's $8,000 a year kids.

How does this all tie in?

Simple: It's all about the money and you're being literally killed by business and government interests that prey on everyone's addictive nature, and the fact that the majority of people succumb to not-healthy addictions of some form.

If we cared about any of this, most-particularly those afflicted, we'd change policy radically in this country.

First, we'd make unlawful forced cost-shifting at all levels.  That which you reward you get more of, and that which is punished you get less of.  If an addicted person is forced to bear the entire cost of their own behavior then there is a powerful, market-based incentive for them to stop it.  The healthy-weight 18 year old would enjoy an immediate $3-4/hour or more wage benefit which I remind you at that level of earnings capacity is the literal difference between being ok without government subsidies and not.

Second, we'd clear the legal minefield for those who are addicted to any substance so long as their behavior is theirs alone.  To start we would legalize and regulate the purity and labeling of all addictive substances -- from caffeine and food as we do now to heroin.  If you are addicted to something harmful and consume it to excess that's on you provided you don't do something like drive while intoxicated.

Third, we'd cut the crap on the "virtue signalling" garbage.  Fat is not healthy, ever, period.  Nor is someone addicted to drugs or alcohol.  One powerful motivating factor is public shame.  We have this grossly-misguided idea that nobody can ever be held accountable for their choices and consequences that merely speaking about them is not only reprehensible "it ought to be illegal, if it isn't."  That's crap and contributes to the problem rather than solving it.

Fourth, we must recognize that someone who is addicted must want to stop being addicted before there is any chance of success.  That's just how it works, whether you like it or not.

And fifth, we must recognize that environment is in fact the largest single determinant of success, especially for people with severe, life-compromising addictions.  It is very difficult if not impossible to refuse an addictive, destructive behavior when everyone around you is doing it, whether that is smoking, doing drugs or eating yourself to death.  If you really want to stop doing it then one of the most-effective means is to physically move somewhere you know nobody who is involved in the destructive behavior.  You might have to do it more than once too.

But all of these, except the last, directly impact the Government and private industry that screw people for profit, and the people of this nation are willing to go along with that screwing, even when it's them being screwed like the 18 year old guy who is literally hosed out of $4/hour every single place he goes to work.

Is it any wonder why he decides to start drinking?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)