The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
2015-07-01 06:00 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 153 references

It's not the weapon folks.  In fact, a common vehicle is far more deadly than a gun in untrained (or inadequately-trained) hands.  Witness here....

At least three people have died and 34 more are injured after a man purposely drove through a crowd in Graz, Austria on Saturday, according to CNN.

The driver, identified by the Graz City Council in a statement as a 26-year-old male, intentionally used his SUV as a weapon, according to CNN.

So what are you going to do about that?  There's nothing you can do -- any city street can be turned into a monstrous scene in seconds should a murderous bastard decide to do so, and what's worse is that he or she comes with a built-in set of armor (in the form of the vehicle!) in doing so.

Oh, finally, exactly what device would you use to stop such a person with a two-ton weapon of destruction under their control?

Why I think that would be called "a gun."

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

As I have repeatedly pointed out there is no mechanism available to force a nation out of either the Euro or EU.

That simply does not exist.

The rhetoric that if you vote against "austerity" and paying back the debt you are inherently voting to leave the EU is false.  That lie is being promulgated by people who you ought to declare are acting in treason against your nation and issue arrest warrants for them.

However, this does not mean that defaulting is "cost free" or will be easy.  It will not.  Defaulting will force you to deal with the following facts which you cannot avoid whether you default or not:

  • The government cannot spend more than it taxes.  Not now, not ever.  Period.  Deficit spending is exactly identical, mathematically, to a tax of the exact same amount in that when you issue currency to fund a deficit you are diluting the purchasing power of everyone who holds it.  In the EU, however, you cannot employ that mechanism freely because you are not your own currency issuer (as the United States is.)  If you return to the Drachma, however, you still cannot freely spend more than you take in via taxes because doing so is exactly identical to taxing the same amount.  In other words having the Euro means you must honestly deal with your budget issues rather than trying to lie about them.

  • The people of your nation must decide how much government you want, and then you must pay for it in the present tense.  This is the inescapable conclusion of the fact above.  Your nation, like so many others, has lied about this for decades.  You must stop, and you must stop now.  Neither I or anyone else can tell you how much government you "should" have; that's a political decision for all of you to make as Greek citizens.

So what does defaulting do for you?

Simple: It removes from your balance sheet the arguably-illegal debt that was taken on in your name and forces those who hold it to eat it.  This will make the issuance of future debt by anyone else in the EU more expensive, but it should be expensive to borrow; borrowed money is a tool that has as its only legitimate purpose short-term, existential threat-related needs such as repelling an invasion by a foreign power.

Yes, on the 5th you should vote to reject the so-called "program" and deliver to your government a mandate to repudiate all of the debt contracted since you entered into the EU.  All of that was entered into under false pretense with explicit conspiracy between your former government, EU government organs and international banking institutions including the ECB.

You must also pry loose the documentation that Bloomberg, along with others, has requested on these schemes and scams and then issue indictments against those who caused your nation to fall under this burden.  These acts were arguably criminal frauds and must be prosecuted.  It is utterly essential that those who commit such acts not get away with it, as the only deterrence available against future frauds is the certainty of punishment when caught committing them.

This transition will be very difficult for you to stomach, for you have been lied to for a very long time.  You have been told you can spend more than you make on an indefinite basis.  This is a pernicious and outrageous lie but arithmetic cannot be bargained with; it just is.  The fundamental nature of exponents means that any such attempt is doomed to spectacular failure and the only means to prevent it is not to engage in such foolishness.

A "Yes" vote on the 5th will be a vote for economic slavery.  You must not engage in such as your children, grandchildren and those not yet born not only have no obligation to allow you to get away with that you have no right to attempt it.  Instead you must vote NO and then live within your means, holding the political debate on what sort and size of government you wish to have, funding each and every obligation it contracts with current taxes.

Throw off the previous frauds, to be certain, for you must do that in order to recover as a people and economy.

But you must, at the same time, stop lying to both yourself and others.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Seriously folks, there are very, very few good people in the medical industry.  Most of them are either corrupted or outright frauds -- if not in their "recommendations" certainly in their exploitation of captive business arrangements and other monopoly-style practices that are illegal in virtually every line of business.

Everyone sees this every time they go to the doctor or set foot in a medical center.  Nobody is presented a quote before "work begins", but every time you go to have your car's oil changed that happens and the quote is honored unless you authorize additional work. That's because this is the law and it has been for decades; it used to be utterly common for auto dealers to get you to come in for a $29 "oil change" and then do $500 worth of work to your car and refuse to give it back until you paid them.  Today you go to jail for attempting that crap in a car repair shop but it happens every single day and in virtually every single case in a hospital or other medical environment.

YOU are responsible for this because YOU refuse to raise hell and keep allowing it to happen.  You seem to think that having "health insurance" keeps this from blowing up in your face and bankrupting you but it does no such thing; not only has this driven so-called "health insurance" prices up to the point that virtually nobody can afford them without stealing money via subsidies unless you are in the top 5% of earners (and even then it's a crazy amount to spend on so-called "health insurance") if you get truly sick, such as having cancer or some other serious event occurs you're still going to be severely impacted financially or bankrupted outright.

This problem doesn't end with hospitals and doctors when they treat you.  It extends to the recommendations they make as to how to live your life, particularly, what you should eat.  Read this carefully folks...

There is a distinct and growing lack of scientific consensus on making a single sodium consumption recommendation for all Americans, owing to a growing body of research suggesting that the low sodium intake levels recommended by the DGAC are actually associated with increased mortality for healthy individuals.


The Academy is also concerned that the Scientific Report's section on sodium intake appears to use the conclusions of several studies that specified they were only for those "who would benefit from blood pressure lowering" as a basis for making a general recommendation that all American adults consume less than 2,300 mg/day of sodium. There are instances in which it is reasonable to make recommendations that are expected to benefit only a subset of a population if the benefits far outweigh the risks, but as noted above, dietary sodium restriction is not one of them.

Got it?  There is a growing body of research that eating a low-sodium diet may actually kill you.

Yet you have been told for years to "limit salt intake."  The science does not support this recommendation.

It gets worse.

We commend the DGAC on a thorough and accurate review of the current best evidence with regard to the body of evidence relating dietary fats to cardiovascular disease outcomes. However, we are concerned that the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that saturated fats should be replaced with polyunsaturated fats for the greatest health benefit.


Equation 3 demonstrates that carbohydrate intake conveys a greater amount of cardiovascular disease risk than does saturated fat. Combined with the evidence from multiple studies that have estimated the impact of saturated fat to be near zero,46 it is likely that the impact of carbohydrate on cardiovascular disease risk is positive.

Got that one folks?  Eating a high-carbohydrate diet likely has a positive change in cardiovascular disease risk -- that is, doing so potentiates cardiovascular events.

Since there are only three types of foods -- fats, proteins and carbohydrates, and eating high-protein is ill-advised for a number of reasons (among them being that it's quite hard on the kidneys) this means that eating a low-fat diet inherently means loading up carbohydrate content since you have removed saturated fat which has no impact in either direction on cardiovascular risk.

You are thus, if following that advice, increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease -- not reducing it.

So not only is your doctor and the medical system trying to rip you off wholesale using techniques that were made illegal and are enforced in virtually every other line of work the "advice" he's been giving you, if you follow it, is increasing your risk of death or severe morbidity due to cardiovascular events.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

The stupid, it burns!

Louisiana Gov. and presidential candidate Bobby Jindal (R) believes that the US is headed down the path to a Greek-style financial disaster.

“Greece will happen here if we do not change course. Anyone who disagrees with this is a ‘math denier,'" Jindal said in a statement on Monday.


But though Romney and now Jindal appear to be making a point about excessive government spending and debt, the comparison is flawed.

That's because US debt and Greek debt are nothing alike.

Greece owes money to its creditors in a currency that it does not control. The International Monetary Fund, the European Commission, and the European Central Bank have bailed out Greece several times and set the terms for how Greece pays back its debt. Greece has no way to pay back its debt other than to accept austerity measures imposed by these three groups.

In contrast, the US is has a currency it controls and risks no debt default. And its debt is denominated in dollars.


Oh, so you say....

As The Atlantic notes, if a debt situation got particularly bad in the US, America could technically print its own money to pay back its debt, since it owes money in a currency that it controls.

Actually, it can't.

The Treasury has to issue bonds, which someone has to buy.  It cannot issue currency (ok, technically it can -- $50 billion in coins); that was part of The Federal Reserve Act.

The Fed, for its part, can only issue currency in exchange for collateral of equal value -- in this case bonds.

But note that bonds have to be repaid with interest.

Further, Treasury has to sell them to someone, whether it be The Fed or someone else. While you can assume The Fed would "print" as many dollars as the Treasury wishes to issue bonds to cover, this is a presumption and not under Treasury's control.

Second, any such act inherently destroys an exactly equal amount of existing value in the economy.  This, incidentally, is why GDP has sucked so badly since the end of the recession was formally recognized in 2009 -- the government has been spending so much in deficit that all of the "so-called growth" has been absorbed, except for a bit, in this destruction of purchasing power.

So yes, Jindal is right and those who argue with him are in fact math deniers.

Oh, that would include Mylas and Business Insider, if you're keeping track.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
If You're Older Than 40 And Reading This...

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.


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.