The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

The Democrat and Republican party -- both sides of the aisle -- are liars.

So are their "spokespersons" when it comes to the issues related to health care.

The most-recent component, that of Aetna deciding to exit nearly all of the ACA exchanges, is just one example.

This is what I said in 2009:

It is my opinion that we should be treating those in the health-insurance lobby, including hospitals, physicians and health-insurance providers, as co-conspirators in a racketeering scheme that effectively trades on the fear of disease and imminent bankruptcy to bamboozle and screw the population, while waving around their "hippocratic oath" - something better described as the "hypocritic oath."

Well?

The talking heads have been out claiming that Medicare and Medicaid spending has "gone down" -- some of them have claimed this on a "per-capita" basis, others just generally.

That's a lie, it's a documented lie, and yet no member of the media has challenged these bald-faced lies despite the numerical facts being available to literally anyone with no more than 30 seconds of effort.

In the most-recent Treasury Statement (which is canonically correct when it comes to government spending) this fiscal year to date Medicare and Medicaid have spent $1,034,867 (millions); that is, $1.035 trillion.  The entire government spent $2,869,374, so this amounts to more than one-third of the total, 36% to be exact.

Last year to the same point in the fiscal year these two programs consumed $950,861.

That is, this fiscal year spending increased 8.83% on a comparable period basis.

Last full fiscal year (September 2014-2015) said spending rose 9.25%.

The prior fiscal (September 2013-2014) said spending rose 6.63% and the year prior to that it rose 5.74%.

There has been no "decrease"; in point of fact it has accelerated by approximately one third in the last two years over the previous two!

This could have been determined in literally 30 seconds by any "journalist" that cared to look.

Nobody cared from either side of the political and media aisle.

This rate of acceleration will, as I have repeatedly pointed out, bankrupt the Federal Government within the next administration's term.  It will in fact exceed all current federal spending within the next 10 years.  Neither of these events will actually come to pass because you cannot have a government when you can't pay the light bill in Washington DC.

There is exactly one way to stop this from happening and that is to start prosecuting and imprisoning, right now, each and every instance of price-fixing (Sherman/Clayton), attempts to monopolize markets (Sherman/Clayton again), pricing discrimination of like kind and quantity for goods (forbidden under Robinson-Patman) and failure or even refusal to provide a price before services and goods are rendered (various consumer protection laws within the states, as well as unfair business practice regulations within the FTC), including such facially-outrageous practices as setting price based on the GDP or "ability to pay" (extort) within a given nation while enforcing same through the passage of laws that are facially unlawful as said practices violate 15 USC.

Until and unless that action is taken the outcome is certain.  Worse, by sitting on our butts as a body politic for the last seven years we have doubled the economic damage we must absorb when, not if, this action occurs and if we wait for the inevitable collapse in a few years instead of dealing with it now the economic damage that must be absorbed will have doubled again.

This is the issue that will first "get us" and yet it is just one of literally thousands of examples where the Rule of Law is ignored with impunity by not only politically-connected people but also those in the corporate world who have economic power.

There is simply no point to either entrepreneurship or for that matter making any sort of effort at all beyond enjoying what little time we have left in this nation under what we consider "reasonable and ordinary" economic and social conditions until and unless the people of this nation rise and demand that this crap stop, for if we do not, as a body politic, our government and social order will collapse.

This is a matter of arithmetic, not politics.

Since you won't get off your ass politically and are far more interested in whether Ellen told a racist joke than whether you've been screwed blind by both sides of the political aisle for decades, you ought to read this article -- because when, not if, this part of our economy collapses (and it will in just a few years) if you're dependent on the "health" system you're going to die, and it's not going to be in a pleasant way either.  Your literal only other option is to not need anything from said part of our economy -- and you're running out of time to make that change.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

I was sent this by one of the authors in my email.

It's science-loaded -- and met with extreme resistance to publication.

Note carefully that the cost to the person who is given this path of treatment for metabolic syndrome (which incidentally either is associated with or leads to Type II diabetes!) is zero.

There were no drugs involved.  There is thus no sale of drugs involved, and no profit for the medical industry; indeed, study participants reduced their pre-existing use of pharmaceuticals.

This study was fairly large in size (n = 372) and showed incredible improvement not only in body mass but also in all of the major metabolic markers, including triglyceride levels, increase in HDL, decrease in LDL, lowered HbA1c and more.

What was the maintenance diet?

After reaching their target weight, a high-fat diet was used for weight maintenance. The use of a high-fat diet was predicated on the high prevalence of insulin resistance in the patient population and favourable changes in multiple health indicators in randomised trials of up to 2 years’ duration in such populations.[3] Foods consumed on the maintenance diet included beef, poultry, fish, eggs, oils, moderate amounts of hard cheeses, and small amounts of nuts, nut butters, seeds and berries.

In other words high fat, moderate protein and low carbohydrate.

Their "weight loss" diet consisted of restriction of both refined carbs and dietary fat, but I suspect the latter was not only unnecessary it limited performance in the weight-loss arena.

Nonetheless the results are impressive; average body mass loss was 12.8kg, BMI was down nearly five points (!!) and metabolic syndrome declined from 57.6% of participants to 19.4%!

Folks, that's two out of three of the study participants who began with metabolic syndrome no longer have it.

Oh, and it gets better.  PHQ-9 showed a commensurate reduction with metabolic syndrome.  For the unaware PHQ-9 is a DSM score measuring depression.  That's right -- approximately two out of three of those who scored high for clinical depression at the introduction of the study no longer were depressed either!

For those who say that LDL will "inevitably" go up if you eat high fat, the study says otherwise.  LDL decreased as did triglyceride levels.  Triglycerides decreased by nearly one third and LDL-C decreased by roughly 15%.

In point of fact the study almost-certainly understated the health impact.  Why?

Consistent with the considerable weight loss, participants at S1 showed marked improvements in their cardiometabolic profile. For example, blood triglyceride concentrations, measured among 119 participants at S1, decreased by 34%, probably a reflection of the reduced intake of starches and sugars.[3] Among the 18 individuals with T2DM in the LI at S1, there was a mean decrease in HbA1c of 0.5%, a figure that fails to account for any reductions in pharmacotherapy, which were not documented in this report. The extent of the changes in cardiometabolic indicators that were measured in this study are therefore a conservative estimate of the health improvements, as participants experienced reductions in the use of insulin and oral hypoglycaemic, antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering agents. To the intervention participants, the reductions in pharmacotherapy were an empowering ‘side-effect’ of the intervention, and for the clinicians administering the intervention, use of this therapeutic approach improved control of hyperglycaemia, hypertension and dyslipidaemias.

Read that bolded section until it sinks in -- the study participants reduced (or eliminated) already-existing pharmaceutical consumption at the same time they improved their metabolic markers and health because said drug therapy no longer "appropriate" (in light of symptoms) at its former rate of use.

In other words the study participants consumption of drugs was not a function of their body's inherent or progressive disorder; rather, the disorder they formerly experienced was caused by their elective choices when it came to what they ate, and when they changed that the "need" for said drugs was either reduced or eliminated.

They stopped poisoning their bodies and thus needed less (or no) "antidote", in short.

Wake up folks; the evidence is right here under your nose: Stop poisoning your body and it will heal.  As a result you will either need fewer or no pharmaceuticals if you do so, which means you never actually needed them at the level you're consuming them now -- and maybe not at all -- in the first place.

What to eat (and NOT)? Here's the list again, in case you missed it, and here is how you can personally measure your metabolic improvement at very little cost, in private, with nobody but you having the data.

You're welcome.

PS: As a "side effect" your pants will probably fall off.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2016-08-12 00:00 by Karl Denninger
in Personal Health , 363 references
 

What utter and complete crap.

'Carbohydrates can definitely aid your weight loss goals - you just need to know which ones to eat!' explains nutritionist Dr. Michelle Braude, founder of The Food Effect www.thefoodeffect.co.uk.

'Without carbohydrates, your body will hold on to excess fat because it’s lacking its main energy supply.'

'In actual fact, cutting out carbs can slow down your metabolism and the process of fat burning - preventing you from reaching your goal weight. Your body needs them to function properly.

'Don’t try cut out all starchy foods - it’s the biggest diet disaster and myth!'   

Total and complete crap.

First, I challenge this fraud to identify one carbohydrate that is essential for human health.  Just one.

You can't, because there aren't any.  There are no carbohydrate-exclusive sources of nutrients.  Zip, zero, nada, none.

Second, there are only three sources of nutrition: proteins, carbohydrates and fats.

That's it.

Your body will not -- because it cannot -- "hold onto" fats if you restrict carbs.  What this quack is talking about is restricting total caloric intake to the point of starvation, but nobody in their right mind does that voluntarily.

'Carbohydrates are the body’s main source of energy for fuelling all exercise, including cardio and resistance training. Cut carbs and your energy levels will drop!

Argue with the clock.

The one right over the finish line.

'When you reduce your carb intake, you may indeed notice how quickly – as if by magic - the weight falls off,' says Dr. Braude.

'While everyone loves seeing the numbers on the scale go down and this may give you a great boost, it will soon plateau.

It stops -- not "plateaus" -- when you reach your natural weight.  A weight at which, incidentally, your gut is gone.  (If it's not gone I'll lay a bet you're cheating with fast and/or starchy carbs.)

'Once your body realises there’s a food shortage it goes into “starvation mode” and your metabolism will automatically begin to slow down in order to expend as little energy as possible. 

'But when you do begin eating carbs again (because such plans are unsustainable for the long-term), you pile on the pounds even more than normal as your whole metabolism and body’s ability to burn carbs has slowed down.' 

Unsustainable eh?  So when will that be evident to me?

It's only been roughly five years so far, and it seems rather sustainable to me.  Not only did my metabolism not slow down to "expend as little energy as possible" it has improved.

I am faster and better now in my athletic performance than I was 30 years ago and yet I eat virtually zero carbohydrate (typically under 50g/day) and often drop to very close to zero for several days before a race -- on purpose.

The other problem this crank has is that her "chart" of carbs ignores a few really important things.  See, glycemic index is indeed important but it is often misleading.  Far more-important is glycemic load.  Why?  Because a food that is dense (e.g. potatoes) may be moderate in glycemic index but due to its mass per unit of volume it's glycemic load is comparatively very high.

I also noted what was missing entirely from her "chart" -- leafy green things like broccoli, brussels sprouts, etc.  Not only are they high in various nutrients they are low in both glycemic load and index, which makes them what your carbohydrate intake should consist of.

To say that restricting carbs means cutting out all carbs (as this woman claims) is utterly false.  What it in fact means is consuming your carbs in the form of said nutrient-dense but calorically-poor and thus extremely low glycemic load carbohydrates -- most of which are green vegetables of some sort (e.g. broccoli, spinach, etc)  And by the way if you eat your carbs exclusively from those sources (1) it's very hard to consume more than 50g of carbs a day, (2) it's essentially impossible to get material glycemic load out of your carb consumption and (3) you will get plenty of dietary fiber at the same time, so those who claim that such a diet is "poor" in fiber are lying about that as well.

Oh, and as for "wholewheat bread"?  It's not materially different in glycemic load than white nor is it materially lower in glycemic index either.  In other words that crazy "doctor" is dead wrong.

Further, while brown rice is better than white, it's actually higher in glycemic load than shortbread, graham crackers or even soda crackers!  Further, watermelon, while high in glycemic index (and thus on her "bad" list) is quite low in glycemic load because of it's low mass ex-water, being about one quarter of the impact of said brown rice!

Look, what this woman says about temporarily feeling like crap when you cut carbs out of your diet is true.  You will.

Then again it's also true that if you drink a lot and stop you will feel like crap too.

It's called withdrawal (or in the extreme case DTs!) and it sucks.

But if you undergo withdrawal when you stop consuming something, and it abates after a while then that's a pretty-reliable indication that you were addicted to said substance.  Now maybe that substance is very bad for you and maybe it's not quite so bad but let's call it what it is instead of BeeEssing people.

You're an addict.

Got it?

Good.

Oh, and cut the crap about low-carb eating being "unsustainable" and "horrible" for athletic performance.

You only need one counter-example to falsify such a claim and I'm sitting right here sneering back at your BeeEss.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Where are the political candidates on this issue?

After a Virginia toddler was bitten by a copperhead snake in his backyard last week, he was rushed to the hospital for life-saving medication -- but now his parents are facing tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills.

....

At Inova Fairfax, Auden endured 16 vials of anti-venom treatment at $3,000 each -- costing close to $50,000. That sum doesn't include his emergency room visit, medical transfer between hospitals and the three days he spent in the intensive care unit because of an allergic reaction to the treatments.

Three thousand dollars a vial?

Really?

How does something like this wind up costing $3,000?  I'll tell you how: Blatantly anti-competitive behavior that instead of being prosecuted (and is illegal, I remind you, under 15 USC) it is instead not only allowed but encouraged.

If you think this is limited to scorpion antivenom that is billed out at tens of thousands a dose when given in Arizona while the actual factory is in Mexico and it can be bought over-the-counter there for $100, or a case like this, with your excuse being that these sorts of events are "relatively" rare I will point you to this chart.

It's for glucose meters and their required test strips.  If you're diabetic you use the strips multiple times daily -- and there are a hell of a lot of diabetics in this country.

Note something very important: The strip price varies wildly, from about 22 cents/strip to $2 each.

All of these devices are required to meet accuracy requirements in order to be sold in the United States.  So how does the "market" manage to support a price range of 10x from the lower to the upper end when it comes to operating costs, since virtually all of the units themselves are right around $20?

It's not very hard to figure out -- as long as so-called "insurance" is paying for it you don't care about the price of the strips you use and thus whatever your "insurance company" or "doctor" hands you will be what you use.

Of course the manufacturer would like to sell you strips for $2 instead of 22 cents, especially when you're using many of them a day!

But were there no cost-hiding games, no "incentives", and you had to fork it up there would be no $2 strips nor any meters that required them because nobody would buy them.

If we prosecuted all of these anti-competitive acts, which I remind you is something we can do today since there is an entire US Title (15 USC) that bears on same, this area of cost in the medical system just like that when it comes to antivenom and similar would plunge in price to anywhere from 1/4 to 1/9th of what it costs today.

This, and only this, is what is destroying our federal, state, local and pension budgets.  It is the issue that will destroy our nation's way of life and standard of living within the next five years if it is not addressed now.

We were told that Obamacare would "fix" this.  That was a lie; several years into Obamacare Medicare and Medicaid are still expanding at roughly 9% a year while tax receipts government-wide are rising at about 1.7%!

There is exactly zero real policy attention being paid to the issue by any of the current office-holders or announced candidates -- whether they be Democrat, Republican or any other party, including the so-called "Libertarians."

That is occurring because you, dear reader, are not demanding that it change -- here, now, today, and without excuse.

As a consequence please do enjoy the next few years of "relative normalcy" in the United States because that is about to end, and you will not recognize, nor like, what is going to happen as a direct and proximate result of your refusal to focus on the issue that faces us as a nation when it comes to economics, politics and fiscal health.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

The recent "reported turmoil" with Trump's campaign is one of the most laughter-inducing things I've seen the media "report" over the last several years, along with one of the most-corrupt.

Let's deal with the corrupt first.

The "dust-up" began with Trump going after Khan after, I remind you, he spent his entire speech at the DNC attacking Trump.

When you get up on a national stage and inject yourself into the political process you are fair game and so is everyone you bring with you.

This is especially true when you are lying through your teeth and have a dubious history -- including recent history.

Specifically, Khan is an attorney who has previously written in a law journal on the "purity" of the Quran and Sunnah.

It is due to this that Khan writes, “to Muslims, the Quran being the very word of God, it is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation.”

Every legal obligation?

There it is, folks.  Oh sure, CNN has said that he "doesn't" support Sharia law, but his own words say otherwise.  If every legal obligation arises from the Queeran, then no obligation in conflict with it is lawful in his mind.  This is in direct conflict with our secular government; The Constitution, not Sharia, is the supreme law of the land -- and attempting to change that by any means other than amendment (good luck) is an act being taken by an enemy of the nation.

Is that bad enough?  Well, actually, no, that's not the end of it.  There are allegations that he has ties to Muslim Brotherhood and..... drum roll please... Saudi Arabia.  If true that makes things even worse, but it doesn't have to be true; Khan has by his own words disavowed the legitimacy of our Constitutional Republic!

But let's get right down to brass tacks -- why would he want to attack Trump?

Well that one's easy: He runs a law firm that specializes in, among other things, E-2 and EB-5 Visa programs that allow overseas investors buy into US companies and essentially buy US citizenship and green cards.  They are widely-regarded as massively abused and rife with fraud by a number of academic and political critics (myself included.)  His presumed clientele for same is largely comprised of wealthy (oil-rich) muslims from nations that are implicated in fomenting or sheltering islamic terrorism.

Trump would likely slam the door on such immigration -- and with good cause.  Gee, that wouldn't be bad for (his) business, would it?

Did the media note any of this or call him on the apparent rank hypocrisy?  Nope.

Not.
One.
Word.

Oh, and once this started getting around on the Internet?  His website, kmkhanlaw.com, was blanked -- presumably to try to prevent that from becoming the story.

But the Internet Wayback Machine (which archives sites) had copies, and what did it say?

Areas of Practice

  • Complex Litigation Electronic Discovery
  • HIPAA Compliance & Audit
  • E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Service

I hate it when "nothing you say or do on the Internet ever really disappears" happens.....

smiley

By the way, that required all of about 30 seconds of effort to find too.  Would it really have been that hard for some media outlet -- if there were any in the country including Fox who aren't in the tank for Clinton -- to look into this and report on it?

Now let me be clear: Khan's son, who died serving our nation, is a hero.  He wrote a blank check to Uncle Sam for any amount up to and including his life, and he got cashiered.

But just as I do not implicate a son in the deeds of his father I do not implicate a father or mother in the deeds of his or her son!  Neither is entitled, either under the law or otherwise, to bear the cross or enjoy the accolades of the other especially when they insert themselves voluntarily into the political process.  Indeed perhaps Khan's son went into the military to assuage his own guilt at being the son of a man who was rampantly abusing the US legal system or even arguably laying forth a claim that Sharia was superior to the US Constitution!

As soon as Khan attempted to trade on the death of a man who clearly believed none of the above on the stage of the DNC his blatant, raw and outrageous hypocrisy, along with that of his wife who played the "religious submissive wife" role on stage (but has been photographed in common American-style street clothes and thus it can be reasonably concluded that too was a ruse) became fair game.

Oh, and by the way, banning immigration for certain classes of people is Constitutional.  Go ask Jimmy Carter who did exactly that during the Iranian Hostage "incident", and I bet you can figure out what class he banned too.  Let me help you: 

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Should you believe this was an abstract issue to me it most-certainly was not; I had a very close personal friend who is Iranian at the time this occurred.  If he had left the United States for any reason during that time he could not have re-entered and he had (quite-valid!) concern that he might be forced to leave.  Let me remind you that as a young man at that time had he been forced to return to Iran the odds were extremely high (essentially 100%) he would have been conscripted into the military and a huge percentage of such conscripts were killed in action during the Iran-Iraq war which was, I also remind you, raging at that time.  There are those who say this ban and what Trump has proposed are not similar; I say bee-ess.  Trump has said he intends to stop said immigration until the nation is capable of properly vetting those who come into the country for malicious intent.  Carter imposed this ban on persons who he had no rational belief might hold personal malicious intent as a means of pressuring the Iranian government into releasing unaffiliated hostages!  If anything Carter was the one who acted with improper motive as there was nothing a young Iranian coming here to study could do to change his or her government's course of conduct and said sanction had exactly zero economic or political impact within the government of Iran!  But the fact of the matter is that both Carter's action, and Trump's proposed action, are Constitutional and within the proper exercise of Executive Department power.

In short what's outrageous is not that Trump punched back after being attacked by a slithering snake on the DNC stage who was lying through his teeth it is that both the media and Republicans have come to the snake's defense instead of excoriating both the DNC and Hillary personally for putting such a self-interested and obvious potato sack full of crap up on stage to run an intentionally-false narrative for the cameras.

All are nothing more than a den of viperous bastards.

And isn't that, really, when you get down to it, the real issue here?  Isn't that the issue across the political and legal spectrum in this country right now?

How about Buffett?  IMHO that fat rat ought to be in prison. If you recall his so-called "investment" during the depths of the panic in 2008/09, more than $26 billion worth, received nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars in support from the government between TARP and FDIC debt-backing!  To put this in perspective some three quarters of said debt had that guarantee, without which it was likely worthless.

Even better he traded the very bailout for which he lobbied.  How is this sort of thing legal and not a violation of insider-trading laws?  Gee, is it any surprise he wants Hillary in office?

Speaking of which think about all the others who are crapping in their pants about Trump possibly winning in one form or another, whether Democrat or Republican.  Ask yourself this question: How many of them have woken up in a cold sweat in the middle of a nightmare -- the FBI kicking down their door and leading them away in handcuffs on charges for which the Statute of Limitations has not yet run.

Let's be real about all of this: The only reason Hillary Clinton wants so badly to be President is that it will insulate her, Bill and Chelsea from anything they have done with their phony-baloney "foundation" -- acts that might otherwise lead to indictments, trials and prison.

And the likely reason the Washington Establishment, including those attached to it like Buffett and even so-called "Republicans" are "endorsing" Hillary is that should their shenanigans be looked into at any level of detail they are likely on the hook too for various acts and thus any non-establishment President is not only a threat to their ability to continue to rip you off in some fashion it's also a threat to their being able to continue walking around outside of a prison yard!

I've been asked to help some government folks with one small part of these issues of corruption, scheme and scam.  I've agreed to do so.  Why?  Because while I refuse to give blanket accolades or even respect to "cops" of any stripe based solely on their costume that doesn't mean that specific and individual law enforcement officials are not "good guys" or that they never do good work.  Of course some of them do and if I can help in putting some bad guys where they belong then, given that I seem to have a lot more time on my hands these days, why not?

As for why all this is important let's cut the crap folks and look at the economic facts -- the clear and present danger that such presents to our financial and economic stability as a nation.

Last year Medicare and Medicaid had an unbridled explosion in expense, as I've documented previously and which is a continuing pattern, not a one-year or two-year aberration.  This year, thus far through May, it has continued with the two programs up 8.93% in spending against this time last year.  And no, it's not just about people getting older; Medicaid block grants are up 5.5% this year so far.

Let me remind you that federal receipts (income to the government, which the rest of us call "taxes") this year are up only 1.68%.

That's a growth rate of spending on these two programs that is 5.3x that of tax receipts.

These two programs are 32.5% of the total expenditures of the government thus far this year; 1/3rd, almost exactly.  Social Security increased 3.2% over last year; and while that exceeds the tax revenue increases as well it is not Social Security that will blow up the government and the economy, it is the medical scam system.

Folks, at a nearly 9% rate of increase (last year's full-year increase was 9.25%, or statistically identical) within the next four to five years the federal budget will collapse.

It will collapse because Medicare and Medicaid will grow to require $1,830 billion ($1.8 trillion) or an increase of more than $500 billion annually within the next four years while tax receipts will only accelerate at present rates by less than half that amount. Social Security will consume a huge chunk of that revenue acceleration all on its own.  

This will blow a roughly $400 billion and exponentially accelerating deficit hole in the budget; a 10 year projection will show that hole to be not a $400 billion deficit hole but closer to $2 trillion annually.

That is, within 10 years Medicare and Medicaid will require more than $3 trillion annually out of $3.8 trillion in projected federal revenue.  Adding in Social Security will exceed all federal revenue.  There is no possible way to fiscally survive this event and within the next President's term it will be evident to everyone in the market for both government and private securities along with all business executives that this outcome is inevitable.

The market and economy will collapse when, not if, recognition of this fact occurs -- not when the actual wall is hit.

What's worse is that as I have pointed out for the last several years insurance companies are finally coming clean on how badly they're getting monkey-pounded on their bond ladders.  Put that out another 4-5 years with "ultra-low" interest rates and you're looking at a very real risk of a mass annuity-carrying insurance company collapse into the maw of the government's funding problems.

There is exactly one way to address this that can work, and that is to investigate and prosecute each and every aspect of the medical and insurance system that violates any part of 15 United States Code (Sherman, Clayton and Robinson-Patman) or any part of consumer-protection law, including those laws requiring posted prices and both a requirement to provide and adherence to quoted prices before service is rendered.

Doing so would not be "free".  It would collapse medical costs in this country by as much as 80%.  It would also instantly remove 15% of GDP, which would be formally recognized as an economic depression and millions of jobs would disappear.

However, that aspect of GDP would be rapidly reallocated to other sectors of the economy and those jobs would follow.  The adjustment would be brutal and immediate, but it would bring a 15% improvement in every American's purchasing power, an immediate and permanent elimination of the Federal Deficit, real interest rates would go up, over time the resulting surplus and debt paydown would bring even more improvement to every American's purchasing power and it would reduce business operating costs by up to 20% which would make the United States the most-competitive nation among the developed economies when it comes to cost-of-doing business, even if there was no other tax relief or other policy change.

Good luck getting politicians -- or the DOJ for that matter -- on board with this.  When you are 20% of the economy your ability to threaten and bribe politicians is literally off-the-charts and without the Rule of Law constraining behavior that is exactly what has and will continue to happen right up until the lights go out.

Staving off fiscal and economic collapse, which is otherwise inevitable, is just part of the general issue our nation faces.  The foundation of all of this and more is far more simple and pervasive: Nobody ever goes to jail if they are politically or corporately connected at a sufficiently high level no matter what laws they violate and in fact they are rarely even arrested!

You want me to be "outraged" at Trump responding to someone who attacked him while running an intentionally false narrative and for both political and personal financial purpose?

Oh hell no.  Not while this den of thieves generally known as the US political, financial and medical system continues to thrive on fraud, theft and outrage.

Hillary Clinton is "just the tip", and this I say to her, along with the media, Paul Ryan, John McCain, the RNC generally and the rest of those who refuse to face reality:

Screw You.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
The Rule Of Law

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.