The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

Here's the bottom line:

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.  Yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 18 January 2015

The problem in a nutshell is that all measurements have an uncertainty. 

When you ask someone what their weight is and they say "161 lbs" they're not giving you a scientific answer.  You know that their body mass is somewhere around 161 lbs, but not how close it actually is.

In order to know that you need to know how good the scale is.  For example, my scale weighs down to "tenths", allegedly, but it is an assumption that it is actually accurate to 1 count - that is, that it can accurately distinguish between 161.1 and 161.2.  In point of fact I know this not to be true, because I have stepped on it and had it read "155.2" and then, two minutes later, have it read "154.5"!

Oops.

The problem with the claim of "hottest year on record" is the same; the uncertainty is materially higher than the change reported!

The bigger issue is the so-called pause; that wasn't supposed to happen at all, as the so-called "models" had claimed it wouldn't -- that we'd see rapidly and continually-increasing temperatures.

We now know, factually, that the so-called "models" are trash; there is a 15-year unbroken record of them being wrong!

The take-away is this: Any claimed scientific measurement without an uncertainty is intentionally deceptive.  The scientists always have the uncertainty values; the only reason to conceal them is to mislead you!

Will you stop being stupid in believing this crap now or will it require a nice fat reversal, which incidentally will cause much more human misery (by depressing crop yields) than warming ever could, before you stop believing the politically-inspired BS and their parasitic sucking on your tax dollars?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

It's rather amusing to go through my emailbag from time to time.

Most of my email is quite boring.  The notification that my latest credit card bill (or bank statement) is ready for me to look at, the daily notification emails from my computer systems telling me about anything noteworthy (the usual "most interesting" line is the count of how many hundreds of spams it interdicted and smashed) and the content off a few mailing lists I follow on various techie-style topics that interest me (including FreeBSD.)

I also use it as an incoming article queue; when perusing various media I'll often make a note via an email to myself, usually with a link to whatever caught my attention, as a tickler file of sorts for later Ticker writing.

And finally, there's correspondence from various people, some random "Over the transom" stuff and some from people who I know at varying levels of understanding, from folks that I have only an electronic "relationship" with to those who I've met a few times at this or that event.  (Those who are my actual associates or friends tend to either call or text me rather than email.)

The latter frequently is someone random letting me know they think I'd be interested in this article or news item or that.  Most of the time I've already seen it and either have something queued on it or don't think it's worth a note, but not always.  Those pieces are always useful to me, so if you've been one of the folks sending them, even if all you get back is "I've already seen it; thanks!" please don't stop -- the occasional "hit" on something I've not seen is quite valuable.

The remainder, however, is a hodge-podge of everything, and some of it is rather repetitive in tone if not content.

So here's the point of this article -- a few have wondered repeatedly, either through the tone of what they email me or through outright request, why I keep writing about the cops and their actions.

Let me point something out for the peanut gallery: My articles about such are in fact a quite-small percentage of those dealing with various forms of corruption in government agencies and private industry.

Where, may I ask, is those people's outrage directed at the other forms of corruption?  Let me give you just a few examples of article titles from a search on Tickers I just ran across the entire archive base using just that one word -- "corruption" -- as a key.

The Great Swindle (from both right and left)
When will perjury be prosecuted as the crime it is?
Anti-Vaccination -- Irrational Or Something Else?
But Ron Paul's Campaign Was CLEAN!
If it's illegal where are the indictments?
Where are the handcuffs? (Jefferson County)

Gary Johnson: Government Corrupt, Prosecution = Snipes
Bald LIES from the Right
Oh Look!  More Accounting Fraud!
More Crony Capitalism?
China: And Now, We Steal What IS Nailed Down
Mass Joinder Update: Holy Moly
Dispelling More Fukushima Fearmongering BS
Illegal Activity By a Bank?  Shut Up And Pay!
Lies from the Left

That's just a random grab-bag and none of them have (much) of anything to do with the cops.

Well, except one thing -- there appear to be a paucity of arrests and prosecutions associated with any of this activity.

And there's the point, you see.

Our nation is founded on the principle that government flows from consent of the governed, not the other way around.  Further, peace officers (or whatever they want to call themselves) are themselves civilians so if they do not enforce all of the laws against all of the people (and corporations) all of the time they are by their actions refusing consent.

Anyone in the "executive" branch of the government is charged with faithfully executing the law.  That includes every sworn officer all the way up to Eric Holder and President Obama.  This is not a discretionary duty.

Most States explicitly codify this, as does the Federal Government.  Florida, for example, provides:

It is declared to be the policy of the state that public officers and employees, state and local, are agents of the people and hold their positions for the benefit of the public. They are bound to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitution and to perform efficiently and faithfully their duties under the laws of the federal, state, and local governments.

You cannot faithfully perform your duties under the law if you pick and choose what laws you will enforce or who you will enforce them against.

That's our biggest problem in this country, at least in my view, with a close second being the pussification of our nation when it comes to political correctness.

Let's not mince words: 

2008 could not have happened without rampant lawless behavior by banksters in the years leading up to the crash.  Not only did the crash dispossess millions of Americans of their hard-earned funds but in addition millions more effectively stole those funds in the years leading up to the crash and yet nobody was prosecuted for any of it.

Hundreds of Mexican citizens and one US border agent would not have died but for the intentional lawless behavior of the BATFE up the line to Eric Holder himself with "Fast-n-Furious."  Nobody was prosecuted for any of it.

9/11 happened because our FBI ignored multiple reports from credible sources (including a flight simulator owner) that a bunch of towel-heads were paying for time on his unit with cash (unheard of) and didn't want to know how to land (which, of course, is what any real pilot would have to spend most of his or her time learning and getting right.)  3,000 people died as a direct consequence and instead of holding the people in our government accountable we got The Sexual Assault (TSA) groping us at airports in "response" and hundreds of billions blown on an agency that has accomplished nothing (DHS.)  Nobody was prosecuted or even fired for the gross dereliction of duty that directly led to 3,000 dead Americans.

A little girl was blown up (literally) in Detroit by lazy cops who couldn't be bothered to wait out a suspect and a second kid had pretty much the same thing happen in the Atlanta area -- both cases were utterly unnecessary uses of force as there was no evidence that either suspect was imminently dangerous to anyone (and in both cases the suspect sought wasn't even there!) Innocent parties were severely injured or killed as a consequence of these acts and nobody was prosecuted for it.

Garner was killed for the "crime" of selling a legally owned item to another person who could also legally own it.  This is identical in form and effect to having a cop strangle me to death for buying you a beer in a bar and yet nobody was prosecuted for his death.

Brown was killed for an arrest-worthy offense (assaulting an officer) but whether the shooting was justified was never presented to a trial court and jury.  The Grand Jury proceedings were intentionally corrupted by the prosecutor in order to produce the desired outcome he wanted, a gross defilement of his office for which nobody was prosecuted.

The cops in NYC have staged a "work slowdown" that amounts to intentional dereliction of their sworn duty; not only has this demonstrated the outrageous nature of their actual activity most of the time, including the quota system that underlies their and most other departments (whether "soft" or otherwise) it is a rank corruption of justice in the first instance.  Not one indictment has issued related to these activities.

There are some who think I'm somehow "anti-police."  Nope.

What I am is pro Rule of Law, which comes with a whole lot more than the simple phrase would indicate.

It is in fact quite-complex but only through a full application of the same do we both enact laws that should be on the books and repeal those that should not.

The very first time that it is intentionally ignored by a so-called "law enforcement officer" the law has no business being on the books at all.  Indeed, it is my belief that such an act, once confirmed by the evidence, ought to be sufficient standing alone to void said law and remove it from the books.

Let that roll around in your head for a bit because it probably jarred you reading it, and your first, visceral reaction was probably quite negative.  

Nonetheless I believe this is an important principle, and perhaps the most important one to take from this article.

Why?

Because if we applied this standard the statute books would be whittled down to size almost immediately.  Florida, for example, has a law on the books that makes illegal cohabitation only for straight couples.  If you think about it that's quite outrageous if you have any sort of view that is friendly toward personal liberty.  This law is basically never enforced, and yet it remains on the books.  Were we to enforce a standard that a law that is intentionally ignored becomes lawfully void this law would be gone instantly as you could easily document dozens of instances on a daily basis where various agencies willfully ignored it.

At the same time so would those laws that make "illegal" stock market manipulation become void -- such as the Securities and Exchange Act that make unlawful the presentment of a bid or offer for other than bona fide trading.

The hue and cry from the very-public removal of this "anti-cheating" law as it is ignored would likely cause a stronger version to be immediately passed -- and this time it would be enforced!

Likewise, the willful and intentional refusal to enforce anti-monopoly provisions in the Sherman, Clayton and Robinson-Patman laws against health care providers, pharmaceutical companies and similar would lead to the voiding of those statutes.  The public impact of such a voiding would likely lead to an immediate demand to pass them once again and this time they'd be enforced.

If that was to happen you'd see the entirety of the health care mess be resolved almost immediately!

That, my friends, is what drives my emphasis on these topics -- in the hope that you will rise up and take this as the cause to champion and work toward resolving both in this year and beyond.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2015-01-22 07:15 by Karl Denninger
in Monetary , 374 references
 

I know I've pontificated on this before but it bears repeating.

"QE", and lower interest rates in general, are often said to be intended to "stimulate the economy" and "raise inflation expectations."

Do they?  Can they?  And if they do, what is the mechanism?

The "what is the mechanism" answer is simple: Lower interest rates make borrowing more affordable.

Ok.

But does borrowing stimulate the economy?

Not really.

At best it pulls forward demand.  That is, you buy a car today instead of tomorrow, because instead of saving to buy the car you borrow the money.  But this means you don't need to buy a car tomorrow, as you already bought it!

What's worse is that the (false) market signal sent by this demand causes industries and such to borrow money to "invest."  This malinvestment, that is, "investment" predicated not on economic fundamentals but rather on the perception that it's a good time to "get it done now" tends to both build capacity into slack demand and game outcomes (that is, balance sheets and profits) through various financial mechanisms such as stock buybacks paid for with borrowed money.

The perversity of outcome is thus assured; when there is more supply than demand prices fall to reach equilibrium and people are laid off or have their hours cut, yet central banks claim to want inflation and greater employment.

Well?

You can't fix too much borrowing with more and cheaper borrowing.  You can only increase the amount of systemic damage and distortion that you originally created by playing with interest rates and liquidity in the first place.

Nobody knows exactly how long you can get away with this sort of thing before the inevitable "overcenter" point is reached and market values (along with production and employment) crack and collapse.  But this much is certain -- that day will come and the premise that central banks can "manage" economic conditions successfully, rather than simply time shift, will eventually be discovered to be not only wrong but disastrous as a result of the compounding of damage that it guarantees will take place.

PS: The exact same brand of stupidity infests those who claim to adhere to "MMT."

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2015-01-22 06:45 by Karl Denninger
in States , 213 references
 

Time to stick it up:

School districts in Illinois are telling parents that a new law may require school officials to demand the social media passwords of students if they are suspected in cyberbullying cases or are otherwise suspected of breaking school rules.

Good luck *******s -- here would be my answer were I the parent of such a kid:

smiley

If the school believes they have an enforceable demand for same they can go get a warrant and serve it on the provider (e.g. Facebook) in question.  Neither I or my kid need give them anything; they can get whatever they want via proper judicial process.

Until that time?

smiley

Any questions?

Ps: To all you school admins - I suggest reading 42 USC 1983. You have a very nice house and I'd like to make it a trashy rental.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Really?  We pay for this with public funds?

At a remote research center on the Nebraska plains, scientists are using surgery and breeding techniques to re-engineer the farm animal to fit the needs of the 21st-century meat industry. The potential benefits are huge: animals that produce more offspring, yield more meat and cost less to raise.

There are, however, some complications.

Yeah, like tampering with the genetics and hormone levels of animals is not expected to produce Dr. Mengele style results?  Of course it does and will!

Little known outside the world of big agriculture, the center has one overarching mission: helping producers of beef, pork and lamb turn a higher profit as diets shift toward poultry, fish and produce.

No matter how many monsters you create -- and then torture -- in the process?

And by the way, not all of these "changes" are of benefit to anything other than someone's wallet.  For example there is utterly nothing wrong with fat content in meat; indeed, it's good.  The lipid hypothesis, which underlays the claims of fat being bad for you in the diet, has been disproved.  It was never proved in the first instance and like so much so-called "science" when it comes to diet (and for that matter anything else the government sponsors) the data was diddled and selectively chosen to fit a pre-desired outcome.

“We’re just as concerned about the humane treatment of animals as anyone else,” said Sherrill E. Echternkamp, a scientist who retired from the center in 2013. Still, he added: “It’s not a perfect world. We are trying to feed a population that is expanding very rapidly, to nine billion by 2050, and if we are going to feed that population, there are some trade-offs.”

Right -- because exponential growth at all cost is all that matters.  It is all that matters to central bankers, to regular bankers and to politicians.  Without it the lie of gain without cost is exposed and that means many careers and money-funneling operations go "poof" in the night.

Never mind this:

“Experimental surgery is being performed in some (not all) cases by untrained, unskilled and unsupervised staff,” Mr. Downey wrote. “This has resulted in the suffering of animals and in some cases the subsequent death of animals.”

You can't perform experimental surgery on your own cat without being charged with animal cruelty!  But this "center" doesn't even bother hiring them -- they have one staff veterinarian.

This is the problem, in general, with government -- it exempts itself from the very rules (and laws) it demands everyone else follow.  This allows the most-horrifying treatment to be doled out to whatever -- or whomever -- it chooses.

And we, the people, are the reason it happens -- we permit this sort of special exemption even though it inevitably blows back on us and nails us in some way.

You may think that how this pig or that lamb died isn't all that important, and maybe you're right.  But your refusal to insist on the law being evenly applied without such special exemptions has led to you spending five to ten times what you should be for routine medical care.  It has led to the outrageously-fraudulent claims of the agricultural industry and government regarding the soundness of a grain-and-carbohydrate based diet, the ridiculous and intentionally-misleading claims of "light" food manufacturers (if you remove fat from a food you must replace it with something and that something is inevitably higher in carbohydrate, usually sugar in some form) and more.

The consequence of this has in fact been a grand "experiment" of sorts on you, with millions of Americans suffering from morbid obesity and its related diseases, including diabetes, the amputation of extremities, dialysis and death.

You may think these don't tie together but you're wrong -- they do -- and all of them occurred because the very laws you're supposed to abide are exempted, or the malefactors involved evade prosecution due to either "special exemption" or simple willful blindness.

Are you ready to wake up yet America or would you like your turn on the dialysis machine and foot amputation table?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
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.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.