The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

There's apparently a full-court press on to try to "get" electors to flip their votes.

Let me point out a few things.

First, there is a "viral attempt" video circulating of "electors" allegedly going to vote for Hillary "anyway."  There's a problem: I identified them and they're Hillary electors.  It does not matter who they vote for, obviously, since they're not Trump electors and thus even being in a state that went Blue it does them exactly zero good because irrespective of their vote the number of electoral votes Trump gets will not be impacted at all.

Second, bombarding Republican electors with hate-filled messages is not going to get them to change their votes to Hillary.  First and foremost, calling someone a racist, islamophobe or similar is a great way to get the middle finger in response.  If anyone thinks they can actually get an elector to flip a vote by calling them a racist jackass they need to go drink a bottle of Drano right now.

Third, electors are chosen by the party for their sworn loyalty and history of loyalty to the party.  Even the most-ardent "never Trump" people in such a position would almost-certainly never, under any circumstances, vote for the Democrat nominee.  They might vote for a different Republican but even if you managed to get 30+ of them to do so that throws the election to the House, which is Republican, and thus Trump wins anyway.

Finally, there's one last check and balance.  The Congress meets in Joint Session on January 6th to count the electoral votes.  An objection to the certificates may be raised at that time and if voted in the affirmative by both houses of Congress, is sustained.

Guess who controls both Houses of Congress?

So let's cut the crap, eh?  This sort of puerile harassment not only has zero chance of success on the merits, it has zero odds of success on the procedure -- and that's before we discuss the tactical idiocy of calling people racists and harassing them by phone, email and letter.

All you are doing by engaging in such is strengthening the argument that the Democrat party as a whole is incapable of adult behavior.  Add to this the riots egged on by both Barack Obama and Hillary and you have a perfect storm of demonstration of the infantile state of a large portion of the Democrat voter base complete with the inability of the party machinery to call out such lawless behavior for what it is and insist that it stop.

The most-productive thing to do when your opponent is in the process of swallowing a pulled-pin grenade is to let them do so and duck around hard cover so as to not be hit by the impending ketchup-painting of everything within a couple of dozen yards.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

I'm going to make this as clear as I possibly can.

If you are dependent in any way of health care being available at all, or if you are dependent in any way on the flow of money from the Federal Government to you then you have somewhere between now and four years from now to become independent of both of those requirements.

The fuse that has been lit for 30 years will soon go inside the box.  There is a fiscal bomb in the box and it is large enough to destroy the federal budget and thus the ability of the government to raise funds in the bond market.

The detonation will also destroy all state budgets and pension obligations.

Let me make sure you understand this -- It will destroy all of these and more:

  • Pensions.
  • Food stamps.
  • Federal and State Unemployment.
  • Section 8.
  • Medicare.
  • Medicaid.
  • Student loans.

All other forms of welfare and "social assistance"; indeed, virtually everything other than the lights in the Capitol and a good part of defense will disappear.

All of it.  All gone.  "Gone", in this context, means 50% or more immediate and permanent reductions, and many of them will be completely gone.  Not to some of these programs and not over some period of time -- to all of them at once.

When this happens virtually every organ of government that exists now that you enjoy the peace and protection of, and benefit from, will disappear.  All of them will be either severely compromised or cease to exist entirely.

This is not politics.  It is arithmetic.

There is nobody -- literally nobody -- who knows how long the fuse is inside the box, except that it has less than five years to burn.  It probably has four years to burn, but there is some risk the rate of burning may accelerate.

That burning fuse will go inside the box approximately one year from now.

That is when the Trump "honeymoon" ends, just as it has for every previous President.  It ends because every Congresscritter starts running for re-election approximately one year from now.  This was true for Bush, it was true for Clinton, it was true for Bush Senior, it was true for Obama, it was true for Carter and Ford.  It will be true for Trump as well.

Once the fuse goes inside the box you can't put it out any more through the simple means of taking out a pair of scissors and cutting it just ahead of where it is burning.  In fact, the odds are high that you wind up in this situation:

There is exactly one way to cut that fuse and stop this.

The Federal Government must demand that all monopolist practices in the health industry end immediately under penalty of prosecution using existing federal law found in 15 United States Code Chapter 1.

Doing so will collapse the cost of health care.  It will thus collapse the demand on federal spending along with state budgets and pension funds.  At the same time it will collapse the private costs of health care as well -- those that fall on you and your employer.

Socialist medical systems around the developed world deliver superior results at half of what we spend.  A material part of that is a cost-shift to Americans through the monopoly practices of health-related firms -- that is, forcing America's 330 million to subsidize persons in other countries.  Capitalism should easily do better than half the current price (even if only by removing said forced subsidies), but it will not do worse.  If we were to take half of the current Medicare and Medicaid spending out of budget we would save $700 billion dollars a year.  This would eliminate half of last year's depreciation of your spending power.  The same savings applied to the private sector would free up over a trillion dollars a year for other purposes, some of which would go into capital investment and if that resulted in 20% of it flowing back to the government in tax revenue that would bring in another $200 billion in taxes.  That is a $900 billion a year swing before you add on the improvements in productivity and business cost, and thus the businesses that would be attracted to the United States from other nations.

That's a low estimate, by the way.  The more-likely figure is in the neighborhood of $2 trillion annually between private, public and federal savings.

We have one year, literally, to see this action implemented.  Not talked about, not debated, implemented.

One year.

Not five, not four, one.

We, as a nation, must demand, insist, and do whatever is necessary up to and including calling and honoring a General Strike to enforce that demand.

Donald Trump can cause this to happen with the stroke of a pen by appointing an AG who he directs to bring these actions using existing law.  This requires no new law from Congress and in fact Congress can't block it -- since it is existing law they would have to amend or repeal said law and Trump can veto any such attempt.

Donald Trump the candidate had vague words in his health care "platform" which hinted at doing this.

But Trump's transition web site has removed all such references.

We cannot allow this as a people or a nation.  If we fail to act now our nation fiscally dies within five years and we have exactly one year to cut the fuse -- or if you prefer turn the cooling pumps back on -- or we're screwed.

Until and unless this becomes our national focus as a people irrespective of what other policy measures you may want or oppose I'm out.

It's that serious folks.  I'm going to go enjoy my last four years if you're going to let the option to cancel self-destruct expire without doing whatever is necessary -- and possible -- to turn the damn cooling system back on.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2016-11-13 09:50 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 1205 references
[Comments enabled]  

Compare these two pages:

First, Candidate Trump:

5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.


7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

Now read what President-Elect Trump has said.

Where did #5 and #7 go?

The rest is pretty much there, with a few (expected "red meat") additions.

Where is any hint of any sort, now that Trump has won and no longer can be claimed to be "shoving Granny down the stairs" as a campaign tactic, of breaking up medical monopolies?

Thisand only this, is why health care costs are so high.  Between prescription drug importation bans (a monopolistic practice Congress created out of whole cloth, and thus Congress can repeal) to CON laws to refusal to post and quote prices to practices such as a differential billing (which is responsible for Michigan having car insurance that's 3x as expensive as states without it for starters) this has utterly disappeared.  This is the issue that must be addressed and this act must take place NOW or our nation dies fiscally within the next four to five years.

This is not a maybe, it is not a possibility, it is not political rhetoric it is immutable mathematical fact.

The Federal government spent 37% of every dollar it spent in total on Medicare and Medicaid last fiscal year.  This rate of spending is increasing by roughly 9% a year.  Within four years that will result in roughly $2 trillion a year of spending on these two programs alone and blow an additional $600 billion a year hole in the federal budget. For scale $600 billion is roughly the size of all defense spending and that's the additional amount we will try to tack onto to what is already being spent today. This is not due to people getting older, it is due to medical monopolies that in any other line of work would land everyone involved in federal prison under 100+ year old law found in 15 United States Code.

Remember that socialist medicine in most of the developed world manages to deliver better health care outcomes than we have at half the cost per person.  Capitalism always outperforms socialism for the simple reason that a capitalist system adds an incentive to bash your competitors over the head with price right up to the limit of excess margin.  That is it adds price discovery as an incredibly powerful cudgel and drives incentives to remove inefficiencies and improve productivity, thereby allowing competitors to undercut one another on price even further.  This means that a capitalist system minus the existing monopolies would wind up delivering health care at one fifth to one tenth of today's cost and also deliver superior outcomes!  If you think this is impossible then explain the $95 MRI you can buy today in Japan (which is not a third-world country) .vs. the same scan that costs $1,000 or more here.

My concern as expressed during the campaign in multiple Tickers was that without a firm commitment to break up the medical monopolies we had no standard by which to judge.  The push-back was that Trump would be accused of throwing Granny off the mountain if he took such a position and the army of health lobbyists would band together to try to destroy his campaign with lies and innuendo (which in reality was all about protecting their jobs and not your health), and would likely succeed.  Ok.  Fair enough.

But now the campaign is over and there is utterly no reason to not put forward said intentions if he ever had them.

As I pointed out at the time I was skeptical that any such intention was ever present.

It appears on the weight of the evidence thus far that I was right.

The evidence for that light you saw a few days ago being, in fact, the sun rising is fading fast.  The manifest weight of the evidence appears to be that it in fact was a fireworks display and, while perhaps some light will leak in around the edges in various ways the most-serious issue the nation faces, and the one that will destroy us during the next President's term is being intentionally ignored yet again.  Yes, it's good that President-Elect Trump will roll back many regulations including those on guns, because you're probably going to need them to protect yourself and your family. Prepare for the darkness, in short, because the odds are rising, not falling, that it is coming.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2016-11-13 05:00 by Karl Denninger
in Market Musings , 441 references
[Comments enabled]  

Why is tech falling apart post-election while the DOW is at all-time highs?

Simple: A Trump Presidency probably means the end of the leech.

Let's look at who this impacts:

1. Forced "net neutrality" that in fact isn't "net neutrality" at all, but was crammed down the throat of the cable industry to help Netflix.  That's probably gone under a Trump Administration.  What does Netflix have left as a business model if it has to pay for its own distribution costs without being able to shift them onto non-customers?  Nothing, as I've pointed out for years, and given Netflix's forward content cost commitments that makes them odds-on to be a zero.

2. Profiting from counterfeit products from China is likely to be curtailed -- or even prosecuted.  Bye-bye Amazon's ridiculous P/E.  No, they're not a zero, but they might be a sub-$100 stock -- easily.

3. Facebook -- think you can steal everyone's location data and use it as you wish?  Uh, maybe not.  More to the point, The Rule of Law may get in the way of a lot of those sorts of plans.  Hmmm.... Not looking so good eh?  Back to $20 you go.

4. Google -- advertising for counterfeit products from China is very profitable.  What happens if that all goes away?  No, this doesn't zero Google by any means but it sure does hurt them.  25% haircut?  Probably.

5. Tesla/Solar City.  Bye-bye.  Tax farms?  They're all zeros for the simple reason that they're all highly-levered on the debt side and have no prayer in hell of survival without said tax farming capacity.  Expect all of that to disappear under a Trump administration, and with it all the firms reliant on it.

6. Any CEO or company that whines about the election or issues what some would consider thinly-veiled threats aimed at "wrong-voting" employees or customers.  We've had two so far that I'm aware of, and both have been taken out back and bent over the woodpile behind the shed.  I suspect CEOs will learn fast that it's a path to immediate ruin to***** off half your customers, but you'd have thought they were smarter than that in the first place, so......  (PS: I ran an Internet company in the 1990s and while I had strong political views even then I certainly was smart enough to keep my damn mouth and corporate wallet shut in that regard since I also knew half the nation didn't agree with me!)

Who's not getting hurt?  Mostly eBAY and ETSY -- so far.  Gee, I wonder why?

Who else gets murdered?  Anyone with a heavy reliance on overseas labor.  Hello a lot of folks -- Apple anyone, for instance?

Start looking at stocks as "who relies on either (1) cheap foreign labor, (2) getting a skim from foreign knock-off products or (3) crammed-through "regulations" without which they do not exist."

Then adjust for who's got either a sky-high P/E (which means a big fall) or worse, on or off-balance sheet debt and forward commitment cash requirements (in which case they're a potential zero.)

That's the easy one, without a single bit of policy yet being announced or enacted.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2016-11-12 05:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 16778 references
[Comments enabled]  

Let me make a few observations.

First, eight years ago, and again four years ago, America elected a President.  Fully half, give or take a couple of percent, disagreed with the outcome.

There were exactly zero riots, fires, "mass protests" and similar following that outcome despite the fact that half the population vehemently disagreed with it.

This time around, not so much.

Now I want you think very carefully about the following.

Most of the land mass of this nation is owned and resided upon by people who are in "red" (that is, the winner this time) areas of the country.  With the exception of certain urban centers and right along the Mexican/Texas border there are very few "solid" blue areas.

Those urban centers consume roughly 90% of the energy and food in this country yet they comprise 5-10% of the land mass.  The "red" areas produce 95% of the food and energy this nation consumes and occupies 90-95% of the land mass.

Do you really think that doing something like eliminating the last pieces of the structure our founding fathers put in place to prevent tyranny of the majority from being able to take hold is a good idea?

A little history lesson: Prior to the 17th Amendment ratified in 1913 it was impossible for the Federal Government to shove any program down the throats of the 50 states.  That's because the state legislatures had effective control of the Senate and could recall their Senators.

The House was elected by the people, the Senate was elected by The State Legislatures (and could be recalled by same) and The President was elected by the Electors, which were voted for in the popular vote.

The latter provides a modest but real increase in the representation of "flyover" states; that is, those with lower population counts.  In other words it is a check and balance in the ultimate tyranny of democracy.

Yes, I said democracy is ultimately tyrannical -- because it is.

America is not a Democracy.  It is a Constitutional Republic.  This is very important; in a democracy 50%+1 can render the 50%-1 slaves by mere vote.  Those who are in the minority in a democracy have no rights at all.  Democracy is best represented by two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

We are all minorities in some form or fashion.  If you're gay, black, yellow, male, female, whatever -- all it takes is some other set of groups to get together and decide to oppress you, and in a democracy you're ****ed.

America's founding fathers put in place two systems to prevent this.  The first was the bicameral legislature; a House elected by the people at large and a Senate elected by the State Legislators.  This structure guaranteed that a landmass that amassed 50%+1 of the population (not even in the same state or states!) could not band together and shove down the throat of the States any policy measure because you needed the concurrence of more than half the state legislatures, where each were delegated but two votes to their Senators who were accountable to said legislature, to pass anything at all.

This evaporated with the passage of the 17th Amendment.  Now you only needed 50%+1 of the people in a given state to pass anything you wanted and they could all live in a tiny percentage of the land mass -- such as is the case with Illinois where more than half the population lives in the immediate area of Chicago.

What came right after that?  Prohibition, shoved down the throat of the States, less than 7 years later!

What also came after it was an unbridled expansion of the Federal Government into state affairs.  Indeed, virtually everything became a "legitimate" federal matter.  Why?  Because it was impossible for the States to prevent it.

Do you think the founders were wrong to do what they did, and the 17th Amendment corrected that?

If you believe so then please consider this.


Ever drive through small town America?

Hell, how about "not-so-small-town" America?

Many of these towns look like something out of a WWI or WWII European war movie.  There was one factory or maybe two, but now it sits empty, weeds growing out of the parking lot as high as your head, all the windows are broken out and the roof has caved in.  Over on the outskirts there's a Walmart that pays $9/hour, but only offers 20 hours/week.  The factory paid $30/hour, full-time, plus benefits and food, power, medicine and beer cost half of what it does now. 90% of what formerly were little diners and shops in the "center" of the town, which might have one actual traffic light, are gone -- boarded up and often literally falling apart.  There might be one bank left, a branch of a big national chain, and maybe an antique store.  Maybe.  All the factory jobs left for China and Mexico and everything else died when the middle-class incomes to support them disappeared.  We did that as a nation with our "progressive" and "global" agenda driven by the 50%+1 that live in the closest big city 200 miles away.

The locals who used to work in the fields within 10 or 20 miles from that town are all unemployed too.  Why?  Because the illegal Mexicans came and we refused to throw them out.  They work for a few bucks a day in cash, no taxes, no unemployment, no nothing.  No American can live on that; the embedded cost of just trying to stay alive would leave you with zero.  But the Mexicans work hard and then sleep 10 to a single-room apartment, which incidentally is a total ****hole as you'd expect given that density of occupation.  They don't care; it's better than what they had in Mexico, you see, and they can Western Union home some of the money.  This is the face of "immigration", mostly illegal, that really exists in this country.  They brought their third-world ****hole here and while it's a little bit better than what they had in the process of doing it they dragged us into the gutter with them.

The people who lived in that town did and most who are still there do go to church every weekend, and some go again during the week, usually on Wednesday.  There's usually one, sometimes two churches.  Every one of them has the word "God" or "Christ" in the name on the front.  They mean it when it comes to their faith and in addition that's where all the local people shake hands, exchange chit-chat on the last week and, for younger people, it's where they meet one another.  You know, girls and boys.  Yeah.  Faith is real there, you see, and it's Christian. But from your point of view that's deplorable and that "those people" don't like the idea of making a wedding cake for a gay marriage is deserving of a federal lawsuit and loss of the bakery (which is, as a result, now closed -- putting yet more people out of work.)  The people who live in these towns don't see your point of view as a civil rights matter but rather as attacking God.

What was left after the factory was displaced isn't enough to run a "service economy", which is why it never showed up there and the old business buildings are all boarded up.  Nobody can afford $8 lattes on a $9/hour wage for 20 hours a week and nobody would want them if they could.  There's probably a McDonalds on the outskirts, and a couple of self-serve gas stations with a convenience store.  It sells cheap beer and lots of it to the locals who have nothing to do but drink and then go to church and pray for forgiveness for last night's 12 pack.  None of the jobs at any of these places, except maybe the store manager, makes more than $9/hour and Obamacare has forced all the regular workers down to 20 hours a week on top of it.  Try living on $180/week gross sometime -- before FICA and Medicare is taken out, never mind gas for the car and the rapidly-escalating car insurance bill -- and you might understand.  Yes, I know the car is 15 years old and runs like crap.  What do you expect on under $1,000/month of income?

This is what 40 years of sending jobs overseas with "trade deals" did.  It's what Amazon did.  It's what Walmart and its Chinese supply line did.  It's what "progressive America" did, and then to add insult to injury the teachers in the public schools tell all the kids that Mommy and Daddy are bad people and hate both the planet and their own kids because they don't drive a $30,000 Prius or a $60,000 Tesla.

This is everywhere in rural America.  Get in your car and out of your comfort zone some time and you'll see it. It's not far from wherever you are.  I've driven through dozens of these formerly-alive places in the last six months -- every one of them dead today, but full of real people.  I never met one such person that was a racist, xenophobic *******, but they're not very happy, and the people they're unhappy with are those very same folks you wanted to keep in office in Washington DC.

If you think the destruction of small town America is confined to farms you forget the other half -- energy.  Would you like your lights to work?  Many of those small towns are dead because of the insanity of our energy policy -- or lack thereof, tied to left-wing whackjob nonsense.

Now you want to add insult to injury when they show up to vote, exactly as civics tells them we have a right to do, and a large number of you in the cities did not show up.

They bought into the message of bringing American jobs back to America and ejecting those who have no right to be here.  You call them xenophobic, racist and small-minded -- they call it a shot at decent employment for the first time in 30 years.

They believe in the Henry Ford model of American business, and they're not wrong to do so.  Make the product here, pay the people well enough to be able to afford it, and you'll do just fine.

They win the election, in short, and you lose.

Then you decide to be a sore loser and loot, burn, beat people, issue threats, cry, whine on social media and try to obstruct everything by any means possible -- legal or not.  You bus people in to "protest" and riot, you "petition", you raise hell in short -- oh, and all this after you implored the other side to "respect the outcome of the election" and lambasted them for suggesting they might want to merely count the ballots twice!

Note again, as I pointed out above, that eight years ago, and four years ago, these very same people were on the losing end of your stick exactly as they had been for the previous three decades yet they did none of the above.  They understand duplicity and your double-standard quite well, seeing as they did the honorable thing and respected the outcome twice in a row despite getting screwed sequentially both times.  The only thing your brand of government offered them in the end was Medicaid or worthless "health insurance" through the exchange; the former has no doctors that accept it within 20 miles and the latter has a $5,000 deductible before it pays anything, which is utterly laughable when you consider these folks have a gross wage of under $1,000 a month.

Now the question:  Are you prepared for the possibility they might decide en-masse that they're done with this crap -- and with you?  That they're not going to take it any more?

What if the people who live in the "red" areas, that is, those who produce the food and energy that are consumed to the 90th percentile in the "blue" areas, decide they're not going to do that for the blue areas any more?  What if their middle finger goes up, in short?

Remember, we allegedly do not permit slavery in this country any more -- which means that which someone owns they have the right to sell - or not sell.  They have the right to produce - or, more to the point, not produce.

What if the people who peacefully conceded the result of two elections over the last eight years despite vehemently opposing the outcome decide that if the "blue" folks can riot, loot, beat people who vote the "wrong way" and similar they will not accept any further election result that doesn't go their way, and instead of rioting or burning things they will simply shut off the flow of food and energy to said "blue" areas?  After all, you don't value them at all -- you consider them subhuman, racist, xenophobic, deplorable and irredeemable -- all at once.

I'll tell you what happens if they take that decision: Every major city in the country would go feral within hours.

Within days those cities would not be blue, they'd be blackened and reduced to ash as those very same "protesters" you like so much loot, burn and shoot at each other trying to get the last scraps of food and fuel remaining.  They would then probably try to come out of the cities and take by force what had been denied them, only to run into a major problem - the "red guys" have more guns, they know the land because they live there, and more importantly they actually hit what they aim at, having had plenty of practice feeding their families with deer, wild boar and similar.  Mr. Gang Banger against Mr. Deer Hunter isn't a very fair fight, when you get down to it.

Oh by the way there's a phrase for what this would mean, if you haven't figured it out by now: Civil War.

Is that what you want?

It's where your actions are headed, if you keep doing what you're doing -- and nobody knows exactly where the tipping point is.

Better think long and hard, those of you in the "blue" places who are running this crap.  You do not have a snowball's chance in Hell of being able to grow enough in the way of crops on the landmass you control to feed a tenth of your population and every squirrel in your trees would be shot dead and eaten within an hour after this began.  Silent spring indeed.  Never mind the fact that most of you "wonderful snowflakes" couldn't shoot, skin, butcher and cook a deer -- or even a squirrel -- if you had to.  Never mind that a good 80% of you couldn't manage to run one mile if you were being chased by someone interested in eating you.

The day that cellophane-wrapped chicken stops showing up in the grocery store is literally the day 90% of Blue America starves.

Nobody in their right mind wants such an outcome.  But where do you think this all goes if you keep it up, eh?

Every bit of it has been enabled by the 17th Amendment and tyranny of the majority -- a tyranny you wish to increase by doing things such as abolishing the Electoral College.

There's a very good reason our founding fathers designed a Constitutional Republic instead of a Democracy.  They understand the problem with democracy: It doesn't work.  Democracy always ends up leading to riots and civil war, because exactly what the blue folks are doing now escalates until everyone starts shooting everyone.

A Constitutional Republic avoids this outcome because even a very large majority cannot infringe the rights of everyone else -- even when the majority lives in big, concentrated places like cities.

That was the magic sauce of the original design in our legislature and Presidency.  It's why we have an Electoral College -- to provide a bit of "overweighting" to those places that are utterly crucial to the cohesiveness and survival of the nation as a functional republic -- that is, a bit more balance against tyranny of the majority of 50%+1.

We got rid of the biggest check and balance with the 17th Amendment and I have, for decades, maintained that whenever America finally is declared dead and done, and the book is closed, that will be written in as the reason our nation's political system failed.  It's the only Amendment we cannot reasonably repeal, because to do so would require the sitting Senate to vote itself out of a job.  I'm sure you can figure out how likely that is.

But we can avoid doing more violence to our Constitution -- and we had better, or the outcome, given the annals of history available to anyone who cares to look, is quite certain.  If you want to see how this turns out should you keep pressing the issue go have a look at the map of how many states Trump won .vs. Clinton, or how the county-by-county map looks.  You'll see a lot more red of various shades than you will blue.

The bottom line?  Go ahead and be a sore loser.  Go ahead and whine.  Go ahead and try to change what our representative process led to.  Go ahead and decide to loot, burn and beat.  Refuse to accept the result of the election, if you insist.  Hell, go ahead and try to threaten or even bribe the electors!  Make sure you tear down the last little bit of foundation and structure inherent in the design of the legislature and executive of the United States.  Who needs it; it's all in the name of being "progressive", right -- even if when counted by landmass, counties or states the election was a landslide for Trump.

Just don't be surprised, if you keep it up, that at some point, given that you're utterly reliant on those you're abusing for the basics of life -- the loaf of bread, the gallon of gasoline, the electricity that powers your lights -- they decide they've had enough.  That day your supply of cellophane-wrapped meat and plastic bag full of bread disappears like a fart in the wind.  There comes a time when those who you've put the boot to for so long, and then try to deny the ability to change things peacefully through the representative process our founding fathers gave us, decide that despite their religious beliefs and good manners they're not going to service you on their knees any more.

Don't be dumb enough to think you can keep doing what you've been doing forever because you can't and if you go too far there will be no warning, no second chances and no saying you're sorry.  It'll just happen starting with one final stupid act -- and then we all lose.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
The CERTAIN Destruction Of Our Nation

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 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.