The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
2017-12-08 16:28 by Karl Denninger
in Flash , 273 references
[Comments enabled]  

smiley

Told 'ya it was forged.

They're still trying to dance on "only" the place and date being altered.

Uh huh, suuuuuuuure.  Oh, and it's not "writing it yourself" if you claim someone else wrote it.

It's forged.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2017-12-08 09:20 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 331 references
[Comments enabled]  

How depraved is this country?

I have long maintained that when I was 7 years old, Woody Allen led me into an attic, away from the babysitters who had been instructed never to leave me alone with him. He then sexually assaulted me. I told the truth to the authorities then, and I have been telling it, unaltered, for more than 20 years. Why is it that Harvey Weinstein and other accused celebrities have been cast out by Hollywood, while Allen recently secured a multimillion-dollar distribution deal with Amazon, greenlit by former Amazon Studios executive Roy Price before he was suspended over sexual misconduct allegations? Allen’s latest feature, “Wonder Wheel,” was released theatrically on Dec. 1.

Last night, while eating dinner in a sports bar, a commercial for Spamazon came on with a toothy-grinned child receiving a Spamazon package.

A girl.

A young girl, to the point, not much different in age than Dylan Farrow at that time.

Big corporations and their rich and powerful managers decide who to fund and what you pay attention to. The record, spanning decades, is that they do not give a damn if kids -- or women -- are sexually assaulted.  They also don't care if they abuse workers, designing "warehouse" jobs that have impossibly-difficult quota systems to meet and which they know humans cannot perform at over extended periods of time without being injured or simply exhausted; they have a line out the door of more victims willing to take their place. 

These people only care when they lose money, which means it's up to you whether this crap is ever stopped -- whether it be abusive labor practices or the sexual assault of both women and young kids by rich and powerful people, including but certainly not limited to those in Hollywood.

That stylized smile on Amazon boxes? I bet Woody Allen had one just like it in that attic.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2017-12-08 09:08 by Karl Denninger
in Employment , 106 references
[Comments enabled]  

So screameth the Bureau of Lies and Scams:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 228,000 in November, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment continued to trend up in professional and business services, manufacturing, and health care. 

I am never impressed with headline "establishment" numbers, so I shall do what I always do, and look inside.

CN smiley said that retail and transportation were "above expectations" since the data is seasonally adjusted.  Steve Liesman literally made that up; this is what the report actually says:

Employment in other major industries, including mining, wholesale trade, retail trade, transportation and warehousing, information, financial activities, leisure and hospitality, and government, changed little over the month.

"Above expectations?"

Ok, on to the household data, unadjusted...

First, I must note that last month I picked up two adjusted numbers in the series I use.  The unadjusted numbers, with that error corrected, show quite a fair bit of loss of employment in October.  We're also -43,000 for this month.  The 12 month running average is now down to 1.795 million job gains, which means on a population adjusted basis we're positive, but not by a whole lot... about 380,000.

Meh.  And the employment-population ratio?  It's flattening too:

The other thing to be aware of is that teens lost jobs last month, which is not normal coming into the holiday season.  Seasonal hiring usually helps young adults and teens; not this time around.  While the loss was not large it was there.  This bears watching, and it may also make for an interesting dynamic in January (when those seasonal hires are usually let go) since they were never hired in the first place.

And by the way, there was also some genuine bad news in this monthly report.  It's for those with college degrees:

Given three ticks down in employment:population ratio among college degree-holding persons would you like fries with that?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2017-12-07 05:40 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 527 references
[Comments enabled]  

Has the light come on yet?

Why do you think the US Congress passed the Sexual Assault Taxpayer Bailout Act by unanimous vote in 1995 -- and Bill Clinton signed it?  Why has it not been repealed -- and in fact, even today there is no bill on the floor of either House or Senate to repeal it, nor has Trump called for it to be repealed and stated he will refuse to sign any other bill (which is within his power) until it is?

The Hollyweird cabal's escapades are not just limited to harassment.  We all know about the Michael Jackson allegations.  Then there's Epstein -- and his connections to both the entertainment and political "industries."  Epstein, I remind you, was convicted and yet of all the people who I've ever read about being convicted of that sort of offense he's the only one who was basically given a slap on the wrist instead of decades in prison.

Worse, all of the others connected to him were not pursued.  At all.  Herr Clinton was of course one of those persons but hardly the only one.  Number of prosecutions of those others?  Zero.

So let's ask the inconvenient question: Is all of this in the political and media sphere nothing more or less than a monstrous blackmail scheme and that is why it never came out until it suddenly was forced into the public eye by some damning revelations that could not be silenced once they got circulating on Social Media?

Good question.

I'm willing to bet that question will never be asked and explored by any so-called "journalist" and that if it was you would not like the answer.

There's another side of this as well: This sort of blackmail doesn't always include actual harassment or assault!  Certainly there are very clear cases (e.g. a photo Senator Al Franken has out there in which he's obviously boob-grabbing a sleeping woman with a huge ****-eating grin on his face) but then there are the decades-old ones that could easily be harassment or even assault or might not be.

There are people who have a consensual affair that goes bad and they decide to get revenge.  Especially when they can destroy someone wealthy or powerful.  What's worse is that they don't have to be the one to use it as a tool of compliance -- anyone who knows about it can do so.

How about Roy Moore?  The evidence thus far (a "yearbook") appears to be forged.  Gloria Allred has refused to turn it over for forensic examination.  What we have learned is that the alleged "victim" had a divorce signed by the Judge which was not disclosed and she might not have liked the outcome.  Motive?  Quite possibly so.  Do we know?  Nope, but her refusal to allow the only piece of physical evidence to be submitted for impartial forensic examination speaks volume as to credibility -- and the likelihood that the alleged "event" was fabricated and Gloria Allred knows it.

Extortion and blackmail are two of the oldest games in the book when it comes to illicitly-wielded power.

Whether the target is actually guilty or not (often they are, of course) the power is there, is abused, and, it appears, widely so.

Exactly how many bills did Dennis Hastert not bring to the floor because he was being blackmailed by a kid he apparently diddled years prior?  We'll never know, but that he paid off said person is now a matter of public record.  We just don't know when the payoffs started, especially if they weren't in money, or who he paid -- and why.

I remind you that Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House and had plenary authority to control the agenda of the House -- that is, which bills came to the floor and which did not.  Do we have reason to believe that he made any of those thousands of decisions under threat?  Yes.  Do we have evidence he did?  No, but we don't need to -- we know the threat was there, the conduct was there and he later paid off the alleged victim (because he got caught doing it.)

Can we ever prove his conduct in setting the House agenda in the years prior was clean?  Nope.  Nor, unless someone is willing to admit to a serious federal offense (and probably go to prison for it), can we ever prove it wasn't.  Never mind that if the person doing the blackmailing wasn't in the US -- like, for example, a Russian -- they'd be utterly untouchable and never admit it because they're not about to give up their cudgel!

When it comes to media personalities it's arguably even worse because they intentionally shape public opinion.  Walter Cronkite's intentional deception on the Vietnam War, which didn't come to light for years after we left Saigon, is fact.  When you add to personal animus for or against some political point of view extortion the view from the so-called media gets very murky indeed.

NBC, for example, claims it knew nothing about Matt Lauer's alleged harassment (and worse; it appears at least one actual assault has been alleged.)  I'm not buying that for 10 seconds, and neither does anyone else with a brain.  Ditto for others in the media and entertainment world, never mind the political.  If Washington DC couldn't keep one blue cum-stained dress that was only known to Clinton, Monica and perhaps a secret service agent secret the odds NBC brass did not know is zero.

They simply found it convenient -- or worse, useful -- to not put a stop to it.

Everyone wants to cluck and count here but the issue is far more serious than it appears at the surface.  This is not just about women being harassed.  It is also about serious issues of national security, improper and felonious interference in our political process, the destruction of businesses and even industries through blackmail and extortion and much more.  To the extent there are children involved, and you know damn well there almost-certainly are, it gets even more serious especially given our own government's refusal to fully investigate and run into the ground everyone implicated in Epstein's "adventures" given that most of those "exploits" involved underage individuals.

This in turn means our own DOJ and FBI were not only complicit they were likely involved in the extortion and blackmail themselves.  That's right -- our own government was and is involved in it, as their willful refusal to run Lolita Express into the ground continues to this very day -- Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump's exhortations about "the Rule of Law" be damned to Hell.

Yet Boobus Americanus has and will do exactly nothing about any of it.  You won't destroy these media companies.  You won't destroy the Hollywood studios.  You won't destroy the commercial firms.  You won't hold the political parties accountable including the entire DNC since Pelosi is the head of the party in the House and she originally covered for and defended Conyers, never mind others.  You won't destroy the RNC either even though it too passed the 1995 Abuse Act by unanimous vote and has taken zero actions to repeal it since.  You won't destroy all the Silly Valley organizations and firms that have fed on the "frat" culture including but not limited to Zuckerpig, Beelzebezos and all of the rest of the big-name "tech" companies who have all feasted on the fruits of this crap if not being involved in it themselves.

To those who either claim to respect or worse are women, you have no excuse for your refusal to act -- unless of course you like this sort of conduct.

I give up.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2017-12-06 11:59 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 2590 references
[Comments enabled]  

If you're too short in attention span to listen to my interview from Monday I guess I can lay it out in text for you.

Not that anyone will read more than the first two sentences that's in the first category.....

Any scheme that shares the following single essential element is a ponzi scheme whether recognized formally in the law at any given moment or not.

That is, the first people who perform some action get a given reward.  The scheme is designed, intentionally, so that the amount of effort for that same unit of reward rises, usually exponentially.  In addition it is usually the case (but not required) that the original effort's starting point is extremely small relative to the reward.

Let me remind you of the mathematical facts surrounding two exponential curves where one exponent is larger than the other.  I will use an extreme example; a "spend" in effort that starts at $1 and goes up at 5% for each iteration and a fixed reward of $100.

If you're one of the first to participate this sounds great!  You spend $1 worth of effort and get $100 in reward.  This scheme is an illegal Ponzi scheme because by the time the 100th iteration takes place each further iteration must produce an inevitable -- and ever-larger from that point forward -- loss.

Note that it does not matter what the compound growth rate of the "spend" portion is nor how far apart the "spend" and "reward" are at the beginning, so long as the "spend" growth exceeds the growth in "reward" value.

The only difference is how long it takes before you get screwed, not whether you get screwed.

Every scheme that has this characteristic is a Ponzi scheme because it is inevitable that the two lines will cross and that later people who participate will inevitably lose money to the founders (and early adopters.)

It is a mathematical certainty that this outcome will occur.

If you have read Leverage (look to the right) you know that I made quite a big deal out of this mathematical relationship early on in the book, because it features in what our politicians have done since roughly 1980 when it comes to revenue, spending and the trajectory of deficits.  The reason governments undertake this, and people design schemes like this, lies in this graph; a very similar graph appears in the book:

 

This represents a "spend" of $1.00, a "reward" of $10.00, and a growth in "spend" of 5% while "reward" growth (e.g. GDP and thus taxable funds, etc) is 2%.

Notice the "belly" in the early periods.  That is, while cost and reward both go up it looks like you're getting a free lunch.  That is, the "gap" (reward less spend) starts at $9.00 and starts to expand immediately; the second period it's $9.15, then $9.30, etc.  In the 9th period it costs $10.00 which exceeds the original reward entirely, so the idiots in the public (that's you, by the way) believe all the talking heads on TeeVee that tell you "the tax cuts paid for themselves", "the economy will grow its way out of this" and similar.

Every single one of these people is peddling an intentional fraud that has been designed to screw you and deserves to be fed to feral pigs.

In fact the fraud and your willingness to buy it goes on for a long time; the maximum spread is not reached until the 50th iteration, when it has become $15.47!  You believe these people are damned geniuses {Reagan, Trump, Greedscam, Yellen, Cramer, etc}.

Unfortunately on the 52'd period, just after you proclaim that these people have achieved the state of Godhood the reward ratio starts to fall.  You still feel good; after all, $15 is MUCH more than the original $9, right?

Alas, by the 73rd period the spread is now under $9 and falling rapidly; in just nine more periods it goes negative and is continuing to accelerate.  About this time you realize that while the "spread" is still close to the original level your cost has gone from $1 to $32; in other words your expenses have expanded by thirty-two times!

By the 100th period the reward is a full $49.64 cents less than the cost and will continue to accelerate until it bankrupts you and everyone else.

Every scheme that has these features is a fraud.

There are no exceptions because the laws of mathematics do not contain exceptions.  An exponentially-increasing difficulty with a fixed reward, or one that increases at a lower rate of growth than the difficulty, where there is no fixed terminus, is by definition a mathematically-proved fraud and everyone involved in creating or promoting such has committed a crime in each and every case.

That we no longer have a Rule of Law allows these people to walk free instead of being imprisoned but that their actions were mathematically-provable frauds is not open to question.

In the case where there is a fixed terminus (e.g. some maximum number of "coins") there is a further consideration.  If the costs rise beyond the reward by design (that is, the exponent makes "reaching the terminal point" impossible) then the above applies unaltered.  If, however, this is not the case (usually by accident, incidentally) but some cost is born by those continuing to participate that is essential to the scheme then you also have a fraud because there is no way to pay for that essential element beyond the terminal point.  As such the viability of the scheme will, as a matter of mathematical fact, collapse when that essential component disappears.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Our Nation DESERVES To Fail

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 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.