The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Editorial]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
There Can Be NO Compromise On Data

Display list of topics

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


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

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

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

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

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-10-15 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 136 references
[Comments enabled]  

In my opinion we're well past the point where we should be putting up with the jackasses in the Middle East waving their oil wells around like giant penises that are theirs to use to **** anyone up the ass they wish.

Without a market for said oil Mr. Crown Prince will be riding a camel.  Should the US decide it's had enough of KSAs bull**** and give the Saudis 24 hours to move all American-sold arms to a safe place before we will blow them up wherever they are the so-called "great Saudi military power" will turn into a ball of Saharan sand.

We should have told the Saudis to go **** themselves and leveled a full embargo on them after 9/11.  After all the vast majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals -- that's not supposition or rumor, it's fact.  Then there's the fact that the evil ********** Bush (then President) let several flights leave full of Saudis after 9/11 when our airspace was locked down.  Who were they and why?  We've never had that disclosed and we have a right to know.

It is a fact that Saudi Arabia has spread its Salafist bull**** through the Middle East and we've not only tolerated it we've called them "friends."  Well, with friends that kill 3,000 of your citizens may I ask who the hell is supposed to be our enemy?

If, as it appears, they murdered a journalist because he said things the Crown Prince didn't like then I suppose said Crown Prince has declared that if you don't like what someone says you can murder them.  Those aren't my standards, they are theirs.

Well now, perhaps a bounty is in order, since murder is now considered acceptable to the Saudi Crown.

The King (and his crown princes) must live under his own law or there is no law at all.  If it's acceptable for Saudi's Crown Prince to order up murders then it's also acceptable for others to order up his murder.

Since no nation can call itself civilized if it subscribes to that crap the solution is obvious: They're not civilized and thus they have no right to expect any sort of trade at all, nor any ability to travel here, nor to own anything in or made by this nation -- including our funds, Treasuries and land.

Yes, we should be able to prove it first, of course.  Then again maybe the standard of proof could be similar to that the Saudis employ when it comes to how they view gays.

In fact I think using their standards ought to suit them just fine -- right?

However, just to make sure they know we're serious, let's pass NOPEC right ****ing now After all 15 USC Chapter 1 is the law in our land, and just like KSA thinks they can have their laws no matter the consequences, even if it means their "monarchy" can murder people, well, that sauce works on the goose as well -- so let's cook theirs right now.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-14 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 249 references
[Comments enabled]  

There's been plenty of discussion over whether services such as Apple's iTunes, Google Play, Facebook, Twitter and similar can ban users on a purely-discretionary basis.

The common argument is that because they are private companies they can create whatever policies they'd like so long as they do not violate existing civil rights law (e.g. you can't ban someone because they're black.)

But this isn't merely about services such as Facebook, Twitter and similar -- now the ability of content creators to monetize their work is at stake. As of the 21st of September  Infowars has been notified that Paypal is refusing to process payments for subscriptions as well as merchandise.

If you remember in 2017 the notorious neo-Nazi web site Daily Stormer was basically run off the Internet -- first by GoDaddy and then in rapid sequence multiple other firms, including Google.  They were denied the ability to buy DNS and hosting service as they were effectively black-balled by dozens of providers of these basic utility-class services more or less "all at once."

More recently Microsoft threatened with loss of their cloud computing provider, Microsoft's Azure, unless they made changes to their operations.  Microsoft was and remains unwilling to provide a specific list of changes they required or specifics of any alleged violations of their terms of service.

The premise that a private company can refuse service (or sales) to anyone is a fundamental part of Capitalism; the theory is that if one retailer does not wish to do business with you then another will.  But these campaigns of harassment are far more sinister and troubling because they now encompass the utility services that underlie the Internet's infrastructure.

This must not be allowed to stand.

Here's an example.  A hypothetical neo-Nazi wishes to buy a domain and purchase web services to air his views.   However repugnant the right to hold those views and express them is protected by the First Amendment.

Do businesses involved in selling Internet utility services have the right to refuse to sell to him?

To put your views on the Internet you need several different services, not just one.

1. A circuit or means of delivery and interchange with other users on the Internet.  Your cellphone or cable modem is an example of the "end connection" in this regard; in the publisher category this is either an ISP or some sort of a cloud provider.  This circuit is not just a line; in some way you have to connect to an interchange point, much like a phone on a physical wire is useless unless it connects to a switch so you can call other people.

2. A DNS or "nameserver" service.  This is what turns "" into an IP address in the format "" or, in the IPv6 vernacular, "2501:......".  This is an essential service for the modern web because it is not only commonplace it is virtually always true on shared hosting or services of any sort that multiple names are bound to one IP address.  For example "" and "" may both point to the same numerical IP address; the server determines which request goes where by the presentation of the domain name.

3. A computer (server), either a physical device or a virtual piece of a larger physical computer.  These days most small and moderate sites are run on virtualizations, not physical machines -- it's much less expensive and most small and moderate-sized sites simply don't need the entire power of a modern computer, so spreading it among other clients makes it less expensive for everyone.

4. The software that takes the message(s) you provide and formats and delivers them to others.  In the web world this is often Apache (a freely available piece of code) although not always by any means -- there are many other packages, some free and some commercial, that perform this function.  In addition there are services that perform this function in other ways (which are software packaged up with a "brand") such as Facebook and Twitter.

The question before us today is where is the line between a company able to refuse service to anyone and not?

I think we can agree that the neo-Nazi cannot be refused electrical service at his house.  Nor can he be refused water, sewer and trash pickup.  He also cannot be refused access to a toll road or bridge, even if privately run, so long as he pays the tolls like everyone else.

But he can be refused seating in a local restaurant.

What's the distinction?

Simple: The neo-Nazi's views are not implicitly endorsed by the establishment in the case of electrical, sewer and toll road service.

It is instantly obvious to an observer that the neo-Nazi's words on Facebook are in fact associated with the company Facebook.  Ditto for those on Twitter. But it isn't obvious to the public that the neo-Nazi bought his DNS or Web Service from GoDaddy or Amazon.  If one was curious you would have to dig for the information.  Even so these providers bear little risk of being co-branded with that neo-Nazi.

As such we should draw through regulation and law some simple bright-line tests.

Facebook can ban whoever it wants, for whatever reason.  So can Twitter.

GoDaddy, however, cannot ban a user from DNS registration no matter the purpose so long their site is legal.  Ditto for Amazon's AWS, Microsoft's Azure or any other cloud or hosting provider. Nor may providers refuse traffic interchange based on the viewpoints contained in their, or their customers, communications.

Twitter, in short, may ban anyone it wishes.  However, should they do so to any material degree there will be created an opportunity for a new Twitter, and anyone may start a competing service with essentially the same feature set.

What do we do with utility services that handle the flow of funds?

Traditional banks or fintech outfits such as PayPal  must not be allowed to discriminate against customers simply because they don't like their political views. Banking and monetary exchange is inherently a utility service and to deny same to any US Citizen as a consequence of their views is to attempt to "starve" a citizen for exercising their constitutionally-protected rights.

Thus the recent PayPal ban of Alex Jones must not stand, Master Card must not be able to ban Robert Spencer and neither can the decision of the bank that recently said "no" to a Florida candidate who supports the legalization of cannabis.  All of these are issue positions used to deny utility services.

We would not allow Florida Power and Light to cut off Nikki Fried's electricity because she supports the legalization of marijuana.  We must not also allow banks and modern utilities such as ISPs, domain providers and similar to effectively destroy people and political speech because they don't like the message, even though it's lawful.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-12 13:17 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 198 references
[Comments enabled]  

I'm dealing with my late Mother's estate and the number of bottom-feeding jackals who have been calling me is off-the-charts.  More than a few send surface mail as well.

The basic scheme is that they want to buy the house out of the estate for about half it's actual market value.

Uh huh.

That might be something someone who is a sole heir could agree to but if you're an Executor ("Personal Representative") for an estate where there are multiple heirs you're asking to get your butt sanctioned or even sued if you do a deal with these *******s.

Why?  Because you have a fiduciary responsibility to the Estate's heirs and devisees, that's why!  You have no more right to sell the property for half its fair market value and screw everyone else than you do to hold a bonfire with the cash in the estate on the driveway!

Now if you're the only heir then who cares -- if you wish to take half the value and do it right now, ok, that's fine.  It's your money; go ahead and burn it.

But if there are other heirs and/or devisees then doing that is legally equivalent to robbing the other people and they have every right to come after you -- if the Probate Judge doesn't ram you up the ass on his or her own!

What sort of bull**** bottom-feeding garbage is this?  I've gotten at least a half-dozen letters and phone calls of substantially the same substance thus far.  That these ****ers do not have the banhammer of the law come down on them for running this crap, when a fairly material percentage of those who they try it on are probably ignorant of the potential consequence and exposure they have is outrageous.

Here's my answer to all who try to pull this crap and, if they find someone who doesn't understand what they're responsible for and what fiduciary means said person risks winding up having their "thanks" in handling an estate coming in the form of being sued to beyond the orbit of Mars and potentially even bankrupted personally by these ****heads and their bottom-feeding bull****:


Needless to say I'm no longer "nice" to anyone who calls me with such an "offer."

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-10 16:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 769 references
[Comments enabled]  

Ok *******s, I'm calling you out.

There was no 155mph sustained wind anywhere on the ground in Michael's path.

There was no 140mph sustained wind anywhere on the ground in Michael's path.

There was no 130mph sustained wind anywhere on the ground in Michael's path.

There were 100-110mph sustained winds.  That's a nasty Cat 2, but not a 4 or 5.

There was a stormchaser on the ground, in a truck, that went through the eyewall and into the eye at Mexico Beach.

I know exactly where he was because I've been over there.  There were also multiple wind gauge readings in the same vicinity -- 110ish gusts, 90-100mph sustained.  Entirely believable given what I saw happen live on that stream watching the eyewall and eye pass over him, but not 155.

At 155 his truck would have been lifted and thrown; I would have watched him die on live video.  It didn't happen.

Yes, Mexico Beach and parts of PC got trashed -- mostly by surge.  No big shock there.  But most of those buildings you're seeing have intact roofs.  Not all (there's a fair bit of older stuff over there that was not designed to modern codes) but most.  And that's important because in a Cat4+ storm there's damn near nothing left; that's an EF3 tornado!

Hurricanes are nasty but let's stop with the bull****.  The video coming in (and the livestreams) do not support Cat 4 or 5 winds -- and neither does the available set of data from wind gauges right at impact.  In the same videos you see someone's roof go flying there's a billboard that's standing proud, tall and undamaged.  That does not happen in a Cat 4 storm.

The reason you board up your house is in evidence right there in those videos.  In a Cat 4 or 5 it does not matter as the entire building, unless it's reinforced concrete or similar, will be flattened.  If you get surged you're screwed.  The reason you board up your house is that in a Cat 1, 2 and moderate 3 if your house and roof is up to code and if you do not get hit with surge it will remain intact right up until the guy down the street, who doesn't have a place up to said code or has a bunch of crap laying around in his yard winds up generating missiles that go through your windows!

The "homes that were there and were moved" and are destroyed are nearly all mobile homes - and there are a lot of them in that area.That's very typical Cat 2 damage; most to all mobile homes will be destroyed in a Cat 2.  They simply cannot take 100mph winds.

I'm not trying to make light of this storm folks.  It was nasty at impact and I was fully-prepared to bug out if I had to.  As it stands we barely got tropical storm force winds here and only about an inch or so of rain.  Nothing; we get worse in a thunderstorm.  There are two videos up on my channel from the exact time the storm was coming into Mexico Beach about 20 minutes apart.

If you were between Panama City and Apalachicola, or even east to Carabelle and similar and in a place subject to surge, or in a mobile home, or in a structure not built to modern codes for the roof in particular then yes, you got it in the face.  But the damage I'm seeing is typical of a Cat 2 -- not a Cat 4.

Those running a politicized level of "reporting" on storms like this do a great disservice.  When an actual Cat 4 or 5 impact looms those who went through this one, didn't get surged and were in modern construction will stay and die.

We must put a stop to this sort of "grade inflation" especially among those doing it for political (e.g. Globull**** warming) reasons -- they are going to get people killed.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-09 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 208 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is one of the most-outrageously disgusting displays of flat-out partisanship I've seen in a long time -- and it's coming from the one place that this nation cannot afford it.

Let me remind you that (as Kagan points out) The Supreme Court has no guns and no army.  It relies on credibility, so Kagan says.  Of course she's lying -- it also relies on a phalanx of alleged "cops" -- including the FBI, all of them heavily armed, never mind the root of the Supreme Court's credibility: The Constitution.

But to state the court's credibility rests in the Constitution would be to invite an immediate revolution, and Kagan knows it -- for she has exactly zero intent toward, nor has she ever, demonstrated fidelity to same -- and neither has the Court in general for more than 100 years running.  In fact her and Sotomayer's entire premise upon the court, which has been made abundantly clear, is that the Constitution is a "living" document subject to the whims of the people sitting behind the USSC's bench.

This is an outrageous fraud that all members of the court (never mind so-called "law" professors) have rendered over the years and shoved down the American people's throat.

That this is a fraud is inherent in the Constitution itself for the Constitution provides explicit means by which it can be amended -- and thus puts the lie to any claim that such an "interpretation" is either correct or necessary.

Of course Kagan's argument devolves into the ugly reality that if the court's credibility is lost and you discern that the "enforcers" of said decisions intend to shoot your only remaining options are to die quietly or shoot first and die messily and loudly.

That's a crappy bargain but it's the one we've got and in fact it's the one Kagan just laid out herself.

The outrageous part of Kagan's words is that she excuses being the far-left wing along with Sotomayer, refusing to take any responsibility for being so.  In other words the responsibility to be a "centrist" and "toe the line" never rests with her, only with other people.

That's the mark of a tyrant; you do it, not me, I'll do whatever the hell I want.  In the context of a Supreme Court justice it is also a blatant violation of one's oath of office, a literal middle finger to the Constitution, and thus a demand for impeachment.

But of course we know that neither side of the aisle has any desire to enforce the Constitution and its boundaries as written -- we merely argue over which part of the Constitution, and we the people, will be raped blind on any given day.

So Kagan you go right ahead and try to run your thuggery -- let's see how it works out.

Comity is not a one-way street and if you think it is you're in for a rude surprise.  And by the way, Sotomayer looks like death.  What the hell is it with leftists -- she knows damn well she must not allow herself to become and remain fat, as she's a Type I diabetic yet she is at least double the healthy body mass of someone of her height and gender.  Down the road she has chosen lies misery, bankruptcy and death -- well, the middle for anyone other than her.  For her, of course, she gets to make other people pay for her carb-laden lifestyle, chasing same with monopolist-priced insulin you are forced to pay for and since she will not stop eating like a ****ing sow the eventual bill for the cut off hands and feet will also not be hers -- that bill too will be yours.

Never forget that she literally has the ability to vote herself money out of your pocket to pay for medical treatment and drugs that she has brought upon herself due to her own elective choice to stuff her pie hole.

A diabetic eating carbohydrates and being fat is no different than a junkie shooting heroin or a drunk grabbing a bottle of whiskey and demanding you pay for it plus, when they destroy their health, demanding you pay the hospital and other medical bills too.

Sotomayer ought to get a big **** you in response to that and be forced to cough up her own money for her own medical care -- in cash, at today's monopolist price.  Perhaps then she'd have an appreciation for what everyone else puts up with in this country.  But no!  She's perfectly happy and feels entitled to stick the boot on your neck and rob you -- literally.

Should the Supreme Court be considered legitimate given all this -- including Kagan's public refutation of her Oath of Office and Oath to the Constitution?  Oh Hell no.  Every single citizen of the United States ought to be erecting a big fat middle finger -- here and now.

If the court doesn't like this reality then the "Just-us"es can either alter their behavior, starting with Kagan and Sotomayer, or attempt to enforce their jackbooted tyranny and see if it works out for them.

Maybe it will and maybe it won't but there's something to be said for having actual skin in the game instead of forcing other people to take your risk and pay your bills.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)