The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Our Nation DESERVES To Fail

Topic list

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.

2018-02-15 16:00 by Karl Denninger
in Musings , 132 references
[Comments enabled]  

Oh my, some balance in an actual article on the issues?

Discussions about the future of cars quickly turn to the pros and cons of autonomous vehicles. But the acronym of choice in such discussions is CAVs – connected and autonomous vehicles – and the "connected" part is already with us. While there are only a handful of fully autonomous vehicles trundling about public roads, most cars already gather data and many exchange it with their makers.

Security problems with connected cars became clear through the 2015 hacking of a Jeep Cherokee that allowed an attacker to remotely control the engine and brakes through its uConnect network connection. Chrysler introduced this in 2009 to put its "infotainment" systems online.

That particular incident got plenty of press but almost none of the other -- and far more serious issues -- get any at all.

Then there's Tesla, which they highlighted -- and with good cause.  Tesla collects essentially everything about your vehicle.  Where you drive, how you drive including camera images from their onboard systems and they consider that data their property.

She adds that privacy concerns appear to be fading, based on surveys she has carried out for technology companies over two decades and her children's relaxed attitudes.

Oh, you good little sheep in the government school that lies to you about our government and its intentions, never mind the intentions of all those who screw you up the poop chute on a daily basis every chance they get.  It's only money, dearest....... (well, that we tell you about anyway.)

This needs to be stopped by whatever means necessary -- now -- before it winds up in every vehicle on the road by force.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

You need this on your wall!

Email for pricing and shipping; painted on canvas, ready to hang and enjoy.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-02-15 08:46 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 1027 references
[Comments enabled]  

The usual sycophants are screaming for more gun control immediately, of course.

They are intentionally and maliciously ignoring this:

“I know she had been having some issues with them, especially the older one. He was being a problem. I know he did have some issues and he may have been taking medication.

"Rage Monster" medication?

You know, the same general class of medication that the Columbine shooters -- along with a huge, in fact ridiculously-high percentage of all school shooters between Columbine and today -- were on?

They're called SSRIs and they're dangerous when taken by people under 25.

Why isn't the first line of inquiry finding out if this guy was on a class of drugs -- prescribed -- that are known to cause this behavior in a small percentage of people under the age of 25?  If he was why aren't we holding the physician who prescribed them accountable as having prescribed a drug known to cause violence to someone in the known risk class -- and charging him or her as an accessory to murder before the fact?

I have long held and written in these pages that these drugs should only be prescribed to those under the age of 25 for those in residential facilities where they can be monitored 24x7.  For reasons we do not understand these drugs stop having that side effect in full-fledged adults (although they still are implicated in potentiating suicides), but in teens and young adults they are dangerous in a small but non-zero percentage of those who use them in that they turn the user into a homicidal maniac.

They're handed out like candy for emotional disturbances and there is a very high correlation between people who do these things and their prescribed use.  These drugs may well be useful in an appropriate subset of the population but it simply must not include those under the age of 25 who are not institutionalized.

These sort of incidents essentially never occurred until we started using these drugs in young people.  Then, suddenly, they did.  Depression isn't a new problem that just magically appeared all at once; it's been with mankind since there was mankind.  What changed was the prescribing of these "wonder drugs" and the risk appears to be specifically isolated to teens and near-teens. 

Psychotropic medication, specifically in this case SSRIs, are dangerous in those under the age of 25 in that there is a known small but real risk of them potentiating a "Rage Monster" style attack when given to people in this age group.  This risk is specifically noted in the prescribing information (it notes the possibility of potentiating a mixed/manic state with aggression if given to someone who is both under 25 and bipolar) but we still hand this crap out to kids and near-kids and there appears to be no good way to know who will have that sort of reaction to consuming them in advance.

As study statistics show while the risk is small it's real and when you give these drugs to millions of people in that age group on a statistical basis you are going to wind up creating some number of these monsters.

This crap must be stopped right damn nowHow many rage monsters do we have to create before we ban the prescribing of these drugs to that age group in non-institutional settings and start charging physicians and other 'professionals' who write said scripts with being accessories before the fact to acts of violence perpetrated by their patients if they prescribe them anyway?

While it is not yet confirmed that Cruz was on one of these drugs it's a decent bet he was and you can also bet the media will not dig into it and the FBI and other authorities will try to keep that information from coming out, if it is in fact the case.

This we must not tolerate.

Second, since we're on the subject of the medical "scam" system in this nation and its likely complicity in this event may I note that in the time between the shooting and this morning more Americans died from the medical monopolists in preventable "errors" and in fact more die this way every single day.  Worse, they die after being asset-stripped, in many cases to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet not one person is ever charged in such deaths.

Why not?  Those who prescribe SSRIs to teens are not Marcus Welby, they're Josef Mengele -- as are those in the medical system who do things like performing an optional surgery on someone with congestive heart failure, pancreatitis and cirrhosis instead of first draining the tens of pounds of fluid from that person's abdomen, stabilizing those other conditions and demanding the person stop drinking and thus grossly reduce the risk of complications -- complications that in the instant case I'm familiar with did happen, nearly killed said person and ran up a six-figure hospital bill they sent to the taxpayers because they "decided" to do the original operation despite actual knowledge of these co-morbidities and the grossly-increased risk they presented.

When it comes to guns there are 50,000 gun laws on the books.  The Second Amendment says every one of them is unconstitutional but we don't care; we pass them anyway.  They will never stop someone from committing an act like this for the simple reason that someone willing to commit murder does not care how many other laws they violate first.  Adam Lanza killed his mother to get her gun; he clearly did not give a crap about gun laws and neither have any of the others who have done similar things.

Finally, let me note this: Every single cop who showed up did not do so with a baseball bat; they all came with guns.  If we are not going to stop prescribing these drugs to teens and young adults then the only other alternative that will make an actual difference is for damn near every adult in every school and other "soft target" like this must be armed and prepared to offer meaningful resistance if such a jackass shows up.

You do not stop a madman with a gun with harsh language just like you don't stop a charging grizzly bear by talking with it.  

You shoot him.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-02-15 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Market Musings , 398 references
[Comments enabled]  


I know, the machines yesterday morning made it look like it was all going to crap.

It wasn't -- not yet anyway.

The pattern continues apace that I've seen before -- and so have you, if you weren't sucking down bong hits for the last decade, which, it appears, most of those commenting on the markets have been.

I still maintain that the next month or so, irrespective of the 10 year Treasury (going up!) and irrespective of retail sales (not doing all that well) will be generally positive.

Your level of skepticism should be roughly equivalent to an exponential series, however, starting around the end of March and increasing as the next months roll on.  If not you are at risk of a rather-severe and unwelcome surprise.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-02-14 14:02 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 195 references
[Comments enabled]  

Oh please...

The latest twist in the tangled tale of what happened between President Trump and an adult film star more than a decade ago has taken a new turn Tuesday, with Trump’s longtime personal lawyer claiming that he paid the porn star $130,000 out of his own pocket.

This "disclosure" came out of a reply to the FEC that received a complaint from a watchdog group that believed the payment amounted to an illegal campaign contribution (and which would if it flowed through same.)

I ain't buying that what Trump's lawyer is selling, although lying to the FEC would be a felony.  But the idea that even a longtime attorney would pay such an amount out of his or her own pocket just because stretches credibility well beyond the breaking point.

We're not talking about a few shekels here folks; $130 large is quite a lot of money for anyone, including a high-priced lawyer.  As for Cohen's refusal to answer any sort of follow-up questions (such as, for example, whether Trump knew about it) that doesn't surprise me either.

I remind you that the FEC has no authority to go further than investigating whether or not campaign finance laws were broken nor should they.  I also remind you that there is no obligation of anyone to disclose how they spend their money generally, although certainly funds flowing in that amount wind up with tax implications somewhere (whether they're earnings, "gifts", or whatever.)

Do I believe that Mr. Lawyer Dude paid her out of his own pocket?  Yeah, that's probably true, particularly considering that lying to the FEC is a crime and there's a decent chance of getting caught if you lie as well.

But do I believe there was no quid-pro-quo somewhere that was worth more than $130 large to Mr. Lawyer Dude?

Oh hell no.

AP is now reporting that the lady in question now believes her gag agreement is now void since said lawyer has now publicly disclosed the payment.   This could get quite amusing in short order.....

And as for the "gag order" that was allegedly part of the payment I also do not believe that was the first time Stormy Daniels had gagged.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)