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):
So What About Kavanaugh?

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.

I have an answer to this problem:

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency joined the nationwide search for three men accused of kidnapping and raping two teen girls in Ohio, authorities said.

A fourth suspect has been arrested and charged in the alleged crime, police said Tuesday.

These are the very people the Democrats and others who want "lenience" and a "path to citizenship" are arguing for.

They are all not citizens.  The arrested one is from Guatemala.

How do we deal with this?  That's not really very hard:

The men were in the Bowling Green area working – two as dry wallers and one at Greenline Foods, according to WTOL-TV. They were reportedly staying in the motel, as were the girls with their mother.

Since an accessory before the fact to a crime is someone who enabled through their willful actions the commission of said crime, and either knew or had reason to know that their actions were unlawful in doing so, then the answer is to for any illegal that commits a serious criminal offense charge the employers, personally, as accessories before the fact.

This means in this case we have a grocery store manager and the builders who hired these clowns that get charged as accessories before the fact to rape.  As an accessory you are equally liable for the crime itself.

Toss those employers in prison for 20 years on a rape charge and the "attraction" of employing illegal invaders will go to zero in an afternoon.  Make the only affirmative defense to such a charge proof that you used E-Verify and have a control number for that specific person you can produce.

Don't have it, said illegal invader commits a felony and you go to prison.

**** these employers -- they're personally responsible for the rape.  Period.

And oh by the way, if you shop at Greenline foods in Dayton?  You condone rape.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-07-04 01:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 469 references
[Comments enabled]  

This piece from a few days ago tells the tale by omission.

The Declaration of Independence talked about England’s “history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object an absolute tyranny over these states.” In response, the founders established the principle of self-government – not just by limiting the powers of government but, vitally, by decentralizing government, as enshrined in the 10th Amendment.

That virtue of decentralization has been under assault for decades by a vast, bureaucratic federal government machine that is as remote, corrupt and unaccountable as the European Union. That’s why we need mechanisms like the Convention of States to return power to the people.

Nice premise.

And a lie.

A knowing, intentional lie.

Yes, this is looking at you Meester Levin.

Here's what the Founders actually wrote:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

One decision specifically folks: Wickard .v. Filburn.

There is no Constitutional power for the Supreme Court to claim that:

  • It can rewrite a statute (e.g. The Affordable Care Act) so as to "save it."  Roberts claimed that judicial construction requires this.  He has no basis for that claim in the Constitution; he literally made it up out of whole cloth and got away with it.

  • It can add or remove words, or alter their plain meaning.  The entirety of the body of federal law on firearms other than aspects dealing with actual interstate commerce, is flatly unconstitutional.  Period.

  • It has jurisdiction of any sort for citizens internal to a state and its law unless said law(s) impact on a delineated and declared individual right protected by the Constitution as that inherently implicates the Federal Government's duties.  For the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction under the Constitution there must be diversity of jurisdiction at issue or where one of the parties is the US Federal Government.

The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction otherwise.

The Constitution does not grant it and the Constitution explicitly states that it is a negative document (that is, it grants limited powers to the Federal Government while all others are explicitly prohibited.)  Period.

The Supreme Court did not have the power to rule on Roe .v. Wade, for example.  It doesn't matter whether you believe a woman has a right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy or not; the Supreme Court has no power to compel an entirely intrastate decision on said laws and regulations because the Constitution has no such framework under which to make that decision nor does it grant such a power to the Federal Government or the Supreme Court.  It can rule on whether (for example) you can act in Interstate Commerce to produce an abortion (and answer that in the affirmative) but not whether a state can entirely within its borders regulate (or even prohibit) same.  The court found a "right" in that decision that it made up entirely out of whole cloth -- a right to "privacy" -- but note that nowhere has that "right" been applied against Google, Facebook, Amazon or for that matter the medical system itself.

The Federal government cannot regulate commerce or personal activity entirely within a given state.  The States can, but not the Federal government.  Wickard .v. Filburn was a flat usurpation of authority that never existed.  There never was and does not now exist the authority for the Federal Government to regulate any intrastate commerce.

The Federal Government knew it had to pass an Amendment, for example, to ban liquor throughout the United States; it knew there was no federal authority to do so entirely within a state otherwise.  The same applies to marijuana or any other drug, incidentally yet that's conveniently overlooked despite the fact that the Federal Government admitted through both the 18th and 21st Amendments that it had no power to regulate or prohibit intrastate production and consumption of anything, including "drugs", without an explicit grant of said power via Constitutional Amendment.

Amending the Constitution is hard -- intentionally so.  It's hard because expanding government power, especially Federal power, is a thing that should never be done lightly or without damn good cause.  Once expanded political power is almost-never removed without people being killed en-masse.  Further, history has proved time and again that most of the time the process of trying to fix those acts of usurpation not only fails it fails dramatically and the people wind up in worse condition than they were before (Nazi Germany anyone?)

The genius of America came in the form of 13 (originally) and then 50 state political experiments with wildly varying amounts of government regulation, taxation and public services.  The Federal Government was explicitly barred from intruding into nearly all matters within a given state, except for those areas specifically outlined in the Constitution and its Amendments as the Founders explicitly intended that some states would find their experiments more successful than others.  This in turn would either compel the losers to change their viewpoints or find themselves increasingly, but peacefully, marginalized for their refusal to do so as people moved from the unsuccessful to the successful states.

Wickard .v. Filburn was a raw theft of that power from the states by the Federal Government.  It should have been met with the immediate refusal by the States to acquiesce, if necessary backed by the Governors calling up their National Guard contingencies as there never was and still does not exist today jurisdiction in the Supreme Court on the matter.  The substance of this case was that Filburn was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm.  The entire cycle of life of said wheat was contained within the boundaries of one state.  The Government claimed that because he grew it he wouldn't have to buy as much wheat on the market, that wheat was traded both nationally and internationally in the marketplace and thus his lack of need to make a purchase through his entirely intrastate actions meant it had jurisdiction.  In short the Supreme Court claimed that there was no limit on any act of the Federal government, ever, since any action or inaction by a citizen always results in some change in one's economic activity.  The mere act of taking a crap leads to "interstate commerce" under this standard and thus the Federal Government can regulate where, how and when you may do so or even tax same; you might buy toilet paper, if you use water to flush or wash your hands you might cause your local government to consume chlorine shipped across a state line to sanitize said water, etc.

The Court ripped up the entire Constitution with this decision -- and thus far, since 1942, for more than 75 years, it has gotten away with it.

Then there are decisions where the litigants lied before the court.  Miller, the seminal empowering decision for federal gun control, was one such instance.  Not only was Miller unrepresented (he was broke and nobody showed up to argue his side of the case) but the US Government directly lied to the court both orally and in written form about the lack of military application of the weapon Miller was arrested for possessing (a short-barrel shotgun), claiming it had no legitimate military or militia purpose despite having previously purchased a weapon of almost-exactly the same design, form and function by the thousands for use in trench warfare during WWI.

Roe .v. Wade was also a deliberate lie.  The claim was that Roe was raped.  We know this was a lie because Roe later disclosed same.  While that was not the foundation of the decision it clearly played into the sentiment on the court and it was not a mistake it was a lie.

Perjury is supposed to be one of the highest offenses in any civilized nation because in every single case it perverts justice, yet in neither of those cases was any subsequent notice given to same nor were the judgments vacated.  Congress could address this but has refused to even discuss it.  There are dozens of similar instances and in exactly zero of those events has a litigant ever faced justice for having done so nor has any Supreme Court decision been summarily tossed on that basis even when the lie is later admitted by the litigants or facutally proved, as was the case in both Roe and Miller.

We have a framework for not only our government but for changing how it works.  The problem is that you can no longer find it in the many linear feet of law and regulation directly contrary to the limits on power in the Constitution and nobody -- utterly nobody -- will do a damn thing about it.

No, a "Convention of States" will not address this.

Why not?

Because the highest law in the land already addresses all of it and said law is routinely and outrageously ignored without one scintilla of consequence attaching to any government agency or employee who does so -- ever -- even when they perjure themselves while under oath.

There is utterly no reason to believe, until and unless that highest law of the land is enforced, which will only happen when the people demand it be enforcedthat any such event will mean anything as whatever such a "Convention" produces will also be ignored unless it is backed up with a credible threat of force.

Why do we need a "Convention" to enforce what already exists?

So on this 4th of July, until and unless attitudes change and the people decided to enforce the black letter of the Constitution we are in fact having a celebration of Dependence day, not the converse as the Constitution is a literal dead letter.

Enjoy your beer.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-07-03 07:55 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 561 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is not going to be easy.

Rescue workers in Thailand who successfully located the 12 boys and their soccer coach trapped in a cave for 10 days are now working on how to successfully get them out, as officials fear it might take months for the flood waters to subside.

There's a lot of people that are thinking "oh just give them dive gear."  Uh, no.

I cave-dive for fun; haven't in a number of years, but I used to be quite-active at it.  It's pretty easy to kill yourself doing that under good circumstances, and this definitely is not.

Reports are that the divers that reached them had a three hour time to get there.  I don't know how much of that was underwater, but the answer is probably "a good amount of it."  For an untrained and inexperienced person a standard dive bottle of gas (80cf) is good for roughly 30-45 minutes at surface pressures.  Yes, a skilled and experienced person can, under decent conditions, double that time at shallow depth -- but there is a zero chance an inexperienced, never-dove-before kid will make it anywhere near that long.  Assuming they're less than 30' or so underwater, where decompression is not a factor, it's very unlikely these kids can get out with standard open-circuit gear never mind that caves are dark and the water is likely zero or near-zero visibility -- meaning you can't see at all so your only means of knowing you're going the right way is to follow a line.  Lose contact with it and, even with training and experience you're in a ****load of trouble and if you don't know what you're doing or panic you're dead.

From what I've read there's at least one restriction that's basically "body-sized and not much more" you have to go through too, which makes for an even worse situation in that if you get hung up in there you're utterly ****ed and you may kill everyone behind you by blocking the passage.  Remember that you cannot talk with someone underwater, and in zero or near-zero vis you can't write on a slate either (the other guy can't read it) so communication is through agreed touch if anything.  This means whoever is in the water has to have their **** together and know what they're doing.

It's likely these guys are using rebreathers due to the gas and time requirements.  I built one and it works.  However, they're quite a bit more complex than regular open-circuit dive gear and if anything goes wrong with one you either know and execute the required procedures, plus have bailout gas sufficient to get to the surface or you die.

Oh, can we mention that your "reptile brain" (which we all have deep in us) will have you do exactly the wrong thing every single time underwater?  This means that if you lose your cool for any reason you are dead, period.

There's an old (mostly-bull**** IMHO) saw about diving that you should "always have a buddy."  There's a decent debate to be had about that in open water, where you have free access to the surface.  In a cave having someone else with you probably means they can mark your body's location if you don't kill them when you screw up (or vice-versa); while in theory with proper gear a buddy can use your long hose (that's why you use a primary hose that's 7' long so you can swim single-file in such a circumstance and your backup is under your chin and for you only), assuming of course you correctly computed gas reserve requirements for both of you in that circumstance including the (much) higher breathing rate after something goes wrong.  In other words, that's all fantasy land nonsense.

Reality when is that if you screw the pooch while diving in a cave there's a very good chance you'll kill the person you're with -- along with yourself.  There are multiple instances where someone has done exactly that by getting stuck in a restriction, has ridiculously jacked-up gas consumption due to whatever happened originally or has destroyed the visibility and gotten off the line and nobody makes it out alive.

How they decide to try to get these kids out of there is going to be interesting.  The one thing they have going for them is that they're smaller (since they're teens) and thus will consume less gas, but it has to be assumed that they will absolutely need some sort of exposure protection (3 hours in the water, even if it's 70F, which it probably isn't, is life-threatening all on its own!) as well assuming they're going to try to bring them out through the water.

This one's not over folks -- not by a long shot.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-07-03 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 256 references
[Comments enabled]  

No America, racism isn't dead.

And no, America, it's not white dudes that are the reality of it.

It's brown and black today, when you get down to it.

The fake news narrative has nothing to do with the truth about Cortez and the reality of the 14th. 

The simple truth is that the Democratic Socialists of America and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put in time and money into a district that the Democrats hadn’t bothered to protect because Republicans couldn’t win it. The secret to Cortez’s victory wasn’t socialism. It was her last name. 

In other words Cortez won because she, and those in her district, are racists.


You see, essentially everything about Cortez is a lie.

She's not a "poor girl" from the Bronx.  She's a hoity-toity Westchester County chick.  Her father got his money not through old-fashioned hard work but through minority set-asides, for which New York (and other similar states) are famous.  She's done nothing of substance with her life, except for ripping off waitresses on shared tips when she was a bartender.

Which, I remind you, is quite standard for socialists.  Claim that it's "from each according to their ability" and then keep it all for yourself -- or as much as you can get away with, even when the majority of work was done by others.

Just like her Dad with his "minority" set-aside business interests.

But this is what we are as a nation now.  I've seen it with my own eyes.  Drink or drug yourself to ruin, literally, and for this you get disability and "free" medical care for life.  When that's not enough (booze and drugs are expensive, you know) then find someone to grift from.  It helps if it's a family member, as they're less likely to call the cops if the grifting turns into outright theft and you can usually play the sob story successfully -- at least up until whoever you're grifting from runs out of money and is destroyed themselves.

Never mind the people who get screwed up the ass by this -- which would be everyone else.  The entire budget deficit last year occurred due to the outrageous grift and fraud in just one area of government spending -- medical.  Put simply more than three percent of the GDP "expansion" last fiscal year was false; it was not actual expansion at all; it was simple credit expansion which means the same amount of goods and services were chased by more dollars, and as since the amount of emitted credit on such is instantly spent (that's why it was emitted) there was basically no expansion at all.

Last year's "expansion" was 4.1% from Q3->Q3, which is when the fiscal year ends.  The total was $771 billion.  Last year's fiscal expansion at the federal government alone was $666 billion.  The difference was $105 billion and that was in fact absorbed by state and local borrowing plus more.

But even if it wasn't -- in other words if State and local governments hadn't issued a single additional penny in bonds this means last fiscal year saw an actual GDP expansion of 0.54%.

Of course state and local governments did expand credit issuance.  So did all other manner of unbacked lenders -- like credit cards and student loans.



Of course you won't hear the truth on CNBC.  Nor on Fox.  Nor on pMSNBC, nor Communist News Network (CNN).

The reason is simple: You cannot solve this without taking all the medical monopolists and jailing them, or at least credibly threatening to do so if they don't cut it out right damn now.  If you were to do that then ~20% of the "economy" would contract overnight to about 4% and the market would crash instantly.

Not "go down a bit", crash.

But if you don't do it the market is going to crash anyway, because it is a fact that those who are not in the 1% or above have seen their ability to continue having a "decent life" eroded away and rendered into poverty.  As of 1/2019 you can evade the personal and direct cost of this by choosing to "run naked" with no health insurance without being penalized this means accepting that you must either get on a plane (get your Passport if you don't have it!) should you need treatment for something and pay cash or, if you can't under the circumstance that occurs, die.

Unfortunately that won't stop you from being destroyed nor will it stop the economy and markets from collapsing.  The reason for this is that your personal election to do this doesn't compel anyone else to.  They are "free" to continue to screw everyone with impunity and force you to pay, and as a result the budget deficit will continue to explode upward and the unbacked credit issuance by Federal, State and local governments will continue unabated.

The so-called "GDP expansion" will continue to be false as it is all this deficit spending: effectively every last single penny of it.

That will be immediately and inevitably reflected in taxes of some form, whether hidden or not.  If it reflects in asset prices (as it has thus far) it will have the predictable results in places like Seattle and Silicon Valley where you're functionally destitute with less than $100,00 a year in income since you cannot afford housing.  If you lack the intellectual firepower to generate $100,000 a year in income you're just plain ****ed.

At the same time everyone cheers on Apple and others who have their market cap precisely because they employ slave labor in third-world nations and thus generate "nice" margins.  They do this to specifically avoid paying Americans a wage.  So do GM and Ford.  GM just announced they will build their new Blazer in Mexico where the manufacturing wage average is under $4/hour.

How many of those people can afford that $40,000 car?  Zero.

But heh -- GM's stock price is up so it's all good, right?

In the meantime let's celebrate New Yorkers' racism -- there's nothing wrong with racism as long as black, brown or "any other than white" people do it, right?

After all it's a great deflection from any debate on the reason our economy is headed straight for a brick wall at 90mph.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-06-30 10:16 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 164 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is just plain old-fashioned CRAP.

So here’s a logical follow-up question: Why don’t young women understand what children, babies in particular, need? And why do they assume they’ll be just as career-driven in their thirties as they were in their twenties?

I’ll answer those questions with two more questions: Why wouldn’t modern women be in the dark about motherhood? And why wouldn’t they assume they’d never leave the workforce?

Since the day they were born, college-bound women have been groomed for a life at the office rather than for a life at home. No one told them their priorities will shift down the line. No one told them how overwhelming motherhood is without a career, let alone with one. Most importantly, no one told them how joyful motherhood can be.


Who pushed this mantra?  What are you doing on The View, Fox & Friends and elsewhere?

Let me tell you where the real problem is, and it's not attitude.

It's the left's and right's obsession with so-called "success" and the ratchet job that it has promoted, endorsed and in fact demanded in our society.

What's a "ratchet job"?

It's why you can't buy a house and raise a family of four on one income virtually anywhere -- unless you have a six-figure+ income, and then a low six figure income is only enough in a few parts of the country!  Don't try it in San Francisco, Chicago or New York -- at least not if you want to actually have some resemblance of a normal life.  In other words, you don't want to live somewhere that drive-by shootings and junkies shooting up on the streetcorner are considered "normal."

It's why a car has a median sales price today of over $33,000 -- which, I might remind you, is more than a year's pretax salary for someone making $15/hour!

It's why an ordinary, vaginal delivery of a baby costs over $10,000 virtually everywhere in America today.  A simple mathematical inflation adjustment of the cost of same from the year of my birth to today would result in a market price of one tenth that amount.  If you want women to embrace being mothers perhaps locking up those who extort the other $9,000 from them and their partners might be a good place to start.

And it's why Terminix thinks it's perfectly-fine to raise their annual price by 30% (which they just did) and at the same time drugmakers have raised prices by tens of thousands of percent.

Between the demands for free stuff along with monopoly protections on one hand and the so-called free market (including the ability to offshore labor under slave conditions) on the other, and the obsession for "stawk prices" as the measure of "success", never mind willful and intentional refusal to address countless violations of long-standing law, without which those monopoly protections and slave labor offshoring could not occur you wind up with utterly no means for what you claim women should be "thinking of" to work for 99% of the women in the country.

In short the lament is vapid and ridiculous until and unless the underlying issues are addressed, which will means a collapse of "market values" (in houses, health care, stock prices, and a whole bunch of other things) back to something resembling reasonable.  And the only way to get there is to enforce the law against the monopolists and modern-day slave labor exploiters who wish to operate in or sell to anyone in the United States or force them to pay tariffs high enough to cover the costs of everyone they displace.

Let me know when you're ready to talk about WHY the situation exists we have today instead of pimping a book.

Until then you may rightly **** off.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)