The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Editorial]
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.


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.

2018-07-23 06:43 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 88 references
[Comments enabled]  

Why do we keep seeing pieces like this in the media?

Since the dawn of humans, we have had to figure out how to support a rising population. But in a momentous change, that age-old challenge is reversing: The population of most countries is shrinking — for many of them, at an alarming pace — and at the same time aging, writes Axios Future Editor Steve LeVine.

Steve LeVine is a five-alarm mendacious jackass.

Yes, in "developed nations" population ex-immigration is either stable or shrinking, and will continue to.


No, it's not because women become more empowered.  That's a bald lie.

It's that families have become intentionally devalued and in many "developed nations" it is near-literally impossible for the median family to form and produce productive offspring in material quantity (defined as "2 or more") with one person choosing to raise the kids and the other choosing the make the money.  And that is without considering the other co-occurring issue, which is the intentional and complete destruction of the ability of a man to decide he wants a family and, having done so, to be reasonably secure in being able to personally raise said kids from that point forward until and unless it is proved he is unfit to do so.  Instead all it takes is a desire on the part of the woman who bore said kid(s) to not live with him anymore and..... poof -- that ability is instantly and irrevocably gone.

In a world where women's empowerment was a true advance and what it has been sold to be the number of couples in which kids were born and raised and thus those in which families thrived would increase.  Why?  Because as women became more equal and empowered in the workplace they could choose to marry a man who had less capacity in the workplace than they did and that man would then be the primary caregiver for the children, with her choosing to be the primary bread-winner.

But that's not what has happened in every single nation that has had such an "enlightenment."

Instead in every case the incentives and ability for both sexes to pair up and raise said kids on one income, but as a couple, has been decimated.

Therefore the so-called enlightenment is in fact false -- and knowingly so.

It is a lie.

The reasons for this are complex and varied, but if you think women's "empowerment" has been about equality at all you're flat-out wrong.  It was about nothing of the sort; instead it has been sold and is about preying on the (demonstrably) greater "empathy" that tends to be exhibited by women to chase a knowingly false God of so-called "equality" so the ratchet games of the financial industry and government can be used to screw both men and women up the ass -- with children as the sacrificial pawns.

Let's be clear about this: There is also no salvation that can be had through immigration either because the fonts from which said immigration can flow (that is, the nations without such population problems and in fact with rapidly-growing populations) are also those where said financialization games are either impossible or unprofitable, and the reason they are unprofitable is that those who would otherwise be exploited are of low enough skill and/or intelligence that doing so makes no money.

Importing such people makes the problem worse rather than better since they consume more than they contribute no matter how many kids they have.  Proof of this is found in budget deficits of every one of these first-world nations that has brought forward such "immigration", legal or not.  Witness the EU where the majority of those "migrants" they have brought in have never held any job of any type and a huge percentage of them state they never intend to.

While there certainly are some who have come to the US illegally (the majority of immigrants over the last 20 years) who have made something serious of an effort and achievement far more of them cut lawns, slaughter chickens and pick strawberries -- and don't pay employment or income taxes.  May I remind you that it is exactly those employment taxes -- Medicare in particular -- that are where the problem lies in our budget?  Oh, and they do make it worse with Medicaid payments at the same time, never mind all the other direct (welfare) and indirect (police expense, etc) costs.

There is only one solution to this problem: Make traditional family formation -- one man, one woman, some number of kids of two or more enjoyable, sustainable and achievable for the vast majority of the population, including specific and enforceable protections for both sexes, once again.

It does not matter which of the two adults go off to work but it matters greatly that only one of them has to for every couple in which either or both resides above the bottom tier of the 1-SD line of intelligence and educational attainment.

In other words for everyone above roughly the bottom 15% this has to be both workable and a matter of basic human decency.

Today it's only reasonably workable for those in the top 15% -- that is, those above the 1-SD line or thereabouts on the right side.

Further, we must cut the crap on so-called "permanent growth" -- exponentially growing the population forever is impossible unless you want Mother Nature (or man) to decide to murder billions, probably all at once or close enough to it to be indistinguishable from same.

The reason is simple: We live on a rock of finite mass, size and resources.  It is thus impossible to technologically outrun exponential expansion.  We can get away with it for a good long while and have, but that limit does exist and if we find it the hard way the result will be either the rise of some natural "pestilence" that will destroy a huge percentage of the population or war when resources are too scarce and people choose to use guns and bombs over starvation or dying of thirst.

stable, robust population, however, is indeed achievable -- but to do it we're going to have politically cut the crap and take all of those in the political, media and financial sphere that have made the "two heterosexual adults and two kids+ with one staying home to raise same" family structure financially untenable for the majority of the population and lock them up.

If we don't do it -- and soon -- one way or another this problem is going to resolve and it won't be through immigration or robots.  It will be through death, and lots of it, whether by mother nature or mass-murder.  History has proved this to be fact time and time again and the willful and intentional refusal to face that fact is chargeable not only against Axios and nearly all other media organizations but also the governments of all developed nations.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-07-21 11:20 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 187 references
[Comments enabled]  

Right here.

As many times as it takes before you get it, read that.

I don't know if you'll need to read it once, twice, 100 or 500 times.

But you had better read it as many times as it takes to sink in, and internalize what is there -- because this is not opinion, it is fact and that fact is known to the powerful men (and women) who make decisions on which everything that occurs in this nation rests.

Powell is the chair of the Federal Reserve.  It has long been argued, and in fact Powell argued himself just the other day, twice, that "trade disputes" could harm the economy.  But what he admitted is that wage growth is not occurring because of slave labor and environmental abuse.

Whether the abuse occurs when Apple uses the much-vaunted "global supply chain" to buy screws for its iPhone frames from a firm in Malaysia that knowingly courts and employs slave labor in the form of "undocumented" workers who are serfs to make said screws or whether it's when some boutique firm that makes $1,500 handbags buys its leather from a tannery in Bangladesh that knowingly poisons the water, or when some Chinese firm steals technology and then ships counterfeit parts labeled as "real" (which, by the way, have been found in safety-critical systems of airliners) the point is the same.

So-called "free trade" is a bald lie.

We were told by all these people that NAFTA would turn the $4/hour Mexican manufacturing labor rate into a $25/hour rate over the space of a few years, and that would result in a rapidly-growing Mexican middle class that would demand more goods from American companies.  In other words the economy on a global basis would expand so fast and wage disparity, which was obvious at the time, would not persist.  In other words it would make no sense for American firms to offshore to exploit that slave labor because it would almost-immediately disappear, meaning the impetus to move those factories would in fact be due to local demand for the products they made.

That was a lie.

NAFTA was signed in 1994.  In 2001 Bush gave China "PNTR", or "Permanent Normal Trade Relations."  Both were sold to Americans as expanding economic opportunity for Americans of all stripes and levels of ability.

Both were lies.

It is now nearly 25 years after NAFTA and the Mexican factory labor rate is still about $4/hour -- with no benefits.  In the US an utterly enormous number of jobs paying $25/hour plus benefits have permanently left America for Mexico.

China is even worse; since PNTR was signed virtually all of our electronics assembly has left America.  

In 1998 Zenith closed its Melrose Plant in Chicago, the last bastion of American television manufacturing.  That plant is permanently gone due to the slave labor in other nations -- specifically China and other Asian countries.  The entirety of American textiles manufacturing has gone to places like Bangladesh where there is no OSHA, there is no regulation, there is effective slave labor and there is exploitation of child labor as well.

I have a shirt on right now that says "made in Mexico."  The pair of underwear I have on right now was made in Vietnam.  The pair of shoes I am wearing was made in China.  I'd love to buy all three from an American company made here but there are none!

Do you really think the $100 pair of Altras that I have on right now would cost more than $100 if made here in America?  That's utter nonsense, just as is the claim that the car would cost $6,000 more if made here than in Mexico or that the iPhone would cost $1,200 instead of $1,000.

If the companies that sell those products could charge $1,200 for an iPhone today and actually get people to buy them they'd do that right here, right now.  If Chevy could get an extra $6,000 for that car, they'd charge the extra $6,000 and keep it right here, right now.  If Altra could charge $150 for a pair of running shoes instead of $100, they'd do it right here, right now.

Never mind the fact that there is probably $3-5 worth of physical material in said shoes.

No, folks, the price would not go up.  What would go down is operating margins.  And, quite-probably, stock prices because so would profits.

But at the same time what would go up would be job opportunities for everyone on the left side of the bell curve, which is fully half of Americans.

If you give a damn about the issue of "income inequality" and "equality of opportunity" then this is where you must focus your attention to the exclusion of everything else because the impact, if you correct it, will be enormous, immediate, permanent and lift fully half of this nation's people in their standard of living -- everyone who happens to fall on the left side of the bell curve of intelligence and ability.

If you don't demand and enforce a shutdown of the slave labor and rampant abuse by the Chinese and others in the name of so-called "free trade" then what you are supporting and demanding is the continued intentional systematic abuse of half the citizens of this country.

You were sold "free trade" with lies.  The people who sold it to you knew they were lies, and now they've been proved to be lies.

It is time to shut them down, take them out of the political and business systems, strip them of their power and consign them to live under the very freeway overpass they want to consign half the American population to.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-07-18 11:16 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 174 references
[Comments enabled]  

I'm tired of this horse**** and those who promulgate it and then cause the nation to self-destruct, along with intentionally blowing asset bubbles through this policy that destroys the lives of millions, need to have that behavior defined as a death-sentence felony with punishment to be meted out by public hanging.

Kudlow once again ran the same crap he ran during the Reagan years about "supply-side" tax cuts, admitting that they boosted deficits (duh) but trying to argue they were akin to a business investment and would be recovered through higher growth.

The problem is he lied about the outcome; what he claims never happened during Reagan's years in office.  The Fed Z1 along with the GDP series proves this.

Further, it's not going to happen now either -- OMB says we'll run north of a trillion in deficit in fiscal 2019.  The import of this is that such a figure would be right around 5% of GDP.

This means in order for the economy to "pay that back" the growth rate would have to exceed 5% GDP in nominal terms over a period of years without further expansion of the debt.  This has never happened because the deficit spending never stops.

Kudlow knows this because he was there for the Reagan stupidity and yet he continues to run this crap, knowing he's lying.  In fact it's much worse than it first appears because the borrowing at "ever lower" ratcheting down interest rates by other actors, other than the federal government, also adds to nominal GDP yet that addition is factually false.

This is basic arithmetic folks; you must measure a thing in non-variant units if you wish to know if that thing is expanding or contracting.

Consider the measure of a "foot" as a unit of distance.  If a "foot" was defined as the length of the right foot of the King, but when you began with this measurement the King was 4 years old, then in 20 years' time could you tell me a "foot" of length was the same as a "foot" of length 10 years prior?

Of course not and any attempt to do so would be instantly laughed down as beyond stupid.

Since the amount of circulating money and credit is the denominator of the unit of dollars then in order to determine the actual GDP in invariant units, that is whether the economy is actually expanding or contracting, you must subtract from the change in a given unit of time the addition of money and credit during that same period of time exactly as you must adjust for the growth of the King's foot in order to determine whether a foot today is equal to a foot tomorrow.

When you do this you find that at no time -- not for one quarter during Reagan's Presidency -- did actual economic output during Reagan's Presidency expand.  What expanded was nominal GDP but the entirety of the "expansion" plus more was actually the expansion of the public debt and other emission of credit.

In other words in an SI, that is, an invariant unit, economic output actually contracted the entire time, and that has, with few and short exceptions, continued since!

How do we know this is true, beyond mathematics which are not suggestions?

Well, what percentage of the people are on food stamps?  There are 42 million on them today, and the last time we saw this level of "unemployment" that number was 17 million.  That's more than a clean double.  If GDP is so great then why are there twice as many people, plus more, unable to afford to buy their own food?

Is that the only example?  Of course not but it's a damnably glaring one, and impossible to ignore.

In the end, however, the bottom line is that mathematics does not hew to either suggestions or politics.  It just is.

You can fake alleged "growth" by cranking up deficit spending for a while but the only way any organization, government or otherwise, can continue to debt-finance consumption is for rates to continually decrease so you can continue to roll over said debt at ever-lower interest expense.  The laws of mathematics make such an exercise literally impossible to maintain on a permanent basis and refusal to recognize and deal with that means that the deeper you have dug the hole before you're forced to stop the more it will hurt and the more people will be abjectly ****ed and even die as a consequence.

Those who press these policies should be held accountable, directly and criminally, as murderers -- because they are.

Take your spot in line for the gallows Larry.

You've earned it.

Oh, and **** you CNBC for repeatedly running that knowing lie, to which you willingly subscribe and promulgate for profit.

PS: Powell just admitted the entirety of the above (other than my recommendation to make pumping this crap a capital felony, of course.)  "US Fiscal Policy has been on an unsustainable path for some time.  It continues to be unsustainable."  One truth-teller who will be completely ignored -- right up until the gallows get built, with or without that law being passed first.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-07-15 07:50 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 275 references
[Comments enabled]  

Elon Musk and Tesla have been the essence of cult behavior.

Elon claims to be a socialist.  But he's in the rarified 0.001% of the population and has done exactly nothing for the 99.999% below him.  Indeed, his primary "contribution" these days is to sell $100,000 cars to very rich people, who are the only ones that can afford them.  His much-claimed "$30,000" vehicle, allegedly intended to be "available" to anyone, has not shipped one single unit configured that way -- instead they're all nearly double that price as he has intentionally refused to ship anything "ordinary" people can afford.

How much of his wealth has he given to the poor?  Statistically-speaking -- zero.  Ditto for the fancy house and all the other things he enjoys.  Does he let the refugees come in and have some A/C on his dime, a place to crash and a beer from the fridge?  Oh hell no.

Then there's the fact that the company has never made a single penny in profit, but has stolen billions from taxpayers.  "Stolen" is the right word too -- I certainly didn't consent to having the tax money taken from me, but it was -- and from you.  Elon of course justifies this as "combating a global evil" ("global warming") which is predicated on utter garbage "science", never mind that his claim of "helping" is a bald lie -- all he has done is moved where the pollution takes place, never mind the lithium mining necessary to build those cars -- nearly all of which consumes a huge amount of fossil fuel and is done overseas on purpose so the toxic wastes produced can be emitted into the air and water with impunity.

His latest stunt was especially galling -- he showed up with a "mini sub" -- sort of -- for the kids stuck in the cave. When rebuffed and told to get out and stop grandstanding he tried to call the people actually doing it unqualified.  Well Elon, said "unqualified" people got all the kids and their coach out alive, and furthermore they were there, knew the environment and clearly did have it figured out where you didn't -- and they rightly told you to stick your toy sub and self-aggrandizing garbage where it hurts.  Good for them and **** you sideways with your 5-alarm bull****.

That wasn't enough.  Musk doubled-down and called one of the subject-matter experts (who actually did it) a pedophile in a since-deleted tweet.  It appears that someone might be a bit mentally unstable, eh?

Cults often have very wealthy leaders for one simple reason -- they con everyone else out of money and claim to be doing "God's work" in some fashion in the process.  Elon is no different than the megachurch pastor, other than being more financially successful at it.  And the wreckage he has left behind in the process, including a woman who fell for his bull**** and was nothing more than a trophy to him, along with the children she bore, is so cliche' that it barely bears mentioning.  Oh, then there was #2, and, well, who knows what has and will follow other than a bunch of cock-holsters who, I'm sure, are not at all attracted to his ability to summon up a carbon-emitting private jet to take them wherever he wants -- when he wants, not when SHE wants.

But heh, he's good for the planet even though he has a personal carbon footprint that likely looks something like that of a small city, right?


The problem is that all these shibboleths are from the far left side of the aisle -- especially the "save the planet" garbage.  And now Musk has been caught giving money to..... surprise surprise -- Republicans.


He "defends" this as saying it's for access, which is even worse!  Now the King of allegedly "good" behavior to "save the planet" is admitting to political bribery, in public.

That ought to go over well with the Social Justice types, even though it might be accurate.

You have to wonder if this is the time he finally blew his own brains out by shooting off his mouth.  The latest has engendered plenty of people talking about canceling Tesla car orders or even attempting to return delivered vehicles.  Of course it's easy to run your yap on social media but the problem with cult leaders, especially those who are indebted up to their eyeballs as Musk is as he's insane enough to buy his own firm's stock with loans, essentially taking a margin loan on himself and the company, resides in the fact that their continued high-flying lifestyle and ego are both dependent on continuing to fill up the pews on Sunday -- or asses to fill the seats of overpriced cars built in tents that come with their own crematorium built in -- just add a random car accident to push the button.

I'm looking forward to the day Elon hears two little words: Margin call

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-07-15 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 183 references
[Comments enabled]  

Read this and see if you can find the idiocy in it:

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page’s action shows that the deliberate destruction of congressional subpoena power is complete and reveals the impotence of Congress to compel evidence. As a result, the ability of Congress to perform substantive oversight is compromised. Only when she was threatened with contempt of Congress proceedings did Page agree to voluntarily appear for a private interview on Friday, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said Thursday.

Page may yet testify at a public hearing before Congress. But why does she or any other government witnesses get to dictate the terms and timing of their own testimony?  How many of us who are not federal employees would dare refuse a subpoena from Congress? How many of us would even get away with it?  

As I explain in my forthcoming book, “The Deep State,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ inexplicable failure to prosecute subversions of congressional authority played no small role in my decision to resign from Congress and the House Oversight Committee last year. I knew what harm the attorney general’s wrong decision would cost Congress and the public.

"Wrong decision"?

May I remind the Congressman that there is a remedy available in the Constitution for this sort of thing?  In fact there are two remedies -- one more drastic than the other, but both are equally available.

First, Congress can impeach Sessions.  Yes, that might fail in the Senate to get a conviction (although I don't know I'd bet on that -- you'd probably get most of the Democrats to go along with it!) but the mere act of doing it would destroy his credibility.  Further, it's the correct remedy for a rogue member of the US Executive; impeachment is clearly indicated here.

Second, Congress has absolute power of the purse.  It can refuse to fund the department Sessions heads specifically in its budget and there is nothing the President (or anyone else) can do about it.  That powers rests in a plenary form in the House; neither the Senate or anyone else can do a damn thing about it.  That's a "nuclear option", of course, in that it cannot be directed at a person, but it can be directed at a department or division of a given department.

Since when does the DOJ get to choose which crimes it prosecutes and which it does not?  Contempt of Congress is a criminal act.  Criminal contempt is punishable by jail until you comply, provided you're able to comply (you cannot be jailed on criminal contempt for refusing to do that which is impossible.)  In this case Pagliano is clearly able to comply but has refused.  He can, and should be, jailed for this.

Now everyone can snub Congress, because Jeff Sessions refused to see the bigger picture. He can’t say he didn’t know. I applied heavy pressure. I told him exactly what was at stake. He made the wrong choice. Now America will pay for it. Getting to the truth just got harder.

No, you'e a pussy Mr. Chaffetz and have absolutely no business being a commentator on any network.

You had a duty to the Constitution to bring articles of impeachment against Jeff Sessions and you, along with the rest of Congress, have intentionally refused to do so and those remaining continue to refuse each and every day.

Your anger is not appropriately directed at Sessions alone and I note clearly that you have expressed no anger toward Paul Ryan, Mark Meadows or anyone else in the Republican Leadership or, for that matter, The Democrats in The House who could also craft such an impeachment petition and seek others to join them.  If the House Leadership tries to prevent that House procedure permits a discharge petition, and if a Bill of Impeachment is to succeed then so should the discharge petition.

Rather than take the very appropriate and available actions to solve the problem you instead quit and now whine about one man when the redress for Jeff Sessions criminal malfeasance of office was entirely within the US House of Representatives' ability to remedy.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)