The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
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. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

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.

Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

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.

2022-11-29 11:27 by Karl Denninger
in Market Musings , 467 references
[Comments enabled]  

Oh look at the lie that is trivially discernible if you read the article.

Discount-hunting shoppers snapped up more Pokemon cards, TVs and air fryers on Cyber Monday, pushing sales to $11.3 billion, making it the biggest U.S. online shopping day in history, according to data from Adobe Analytics.

Sales, not adjusted for inflation, rose 5.8% from a year ago, per data from Adobe Analytics,....

Why is the "biggest online shopping day in history" a lie?

Because inflation is greater than 5.8% as measured by the annual CPI which is up 7.7% over the last 12 months, so in terms of "stuff sold" this Cyber Monday was actually DOWN compared with last year.

What's worse is that both consumer confidence and inflation expectations went the wrong way.  

The Conference Board said its consumer confidence index fell to 100.2 this month from 102.2 in October. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast the index at 100.0. Still, the index remains above its COVID-19 pandemic lows. It places more emphasis on the labor market, which remains tight.

Consumers' 12-month inflation expectations increased to 7.2% from 6.9% last month.

The latter is a serious problem for those who think The Fed is "done" or "will slow down" when it comes to rate increases and liquidity withdrawal.  Consumer inflation expectations tend to be very "sticky" and those expectations are what drive behavior.

The bottom line is that nobody believes The Fed -- or the government -- has yet or will in the next year get a handle on the inflation problem which is, at its core, very simple: Spending more money, as a government than you first tax.

Buckle up.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2022-11-28 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Musings , 527 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

This applies to all such medical technology -- both mRNA and "viral vector" game-playing, neither of which had ever seen widespread use prior to the virus that must not be named.

The argument is pretty simple:

Every single sexually-reproducing thing starts with the fusion of two gametes into one cell.  From this single cell division and then differentiation takes place.  Within the first few sets of division that differentiation begins to express, and it is why you have two arms, two legs, two eyeballs, a brain, genitals and similar.  All those elements of your being are the several-time down progeny of that one original cell.

This differentiation occurs as a result of the cellular machinery in each and every cell executing on what originally was and remains a unique combination of DNA from those two gametes.  That is, each cell in your body contains the same DNA yet the function of a muscle cell in your arm is very different than the function of a cell in the retina of your eye.

The premise of all "vector" medication, no matter the purpose (e.g. vaccination, treatment, etc.) is that we understand all of this process and what we intend to change we have complete understanding and thus can control what happens over time. We know what, exactly, it will do -- and that what we introduce will do nothing else.

This premise is false; if it was not we would know how to turn parts of the genetic code back on when we want to and, for example, cause the heart to regenerate the damaged portions after an occlusive heart attack when we've successfully restored blood flow, or similarly with an occlusive stroke.  We could cause your amputated finger, toe or entire leg to grow back.

We can, in fact, do none of these things and the reason is that we do not understand how it is that such takes place originally and thus we can't manipulate it successfully.  Decades of trying to figure this out have, at this point, all been failures.  The day they succeed is the day that this becomes common:

Today that is science fiction and the reason it is fiction is that we don't understand how this all happens in the body with any reasonable degree of certainty.  If we did we'd have solved this problem, we'd have solved cancer in its entirety and any damaged part of the body could be replaced.  In point of fact only the liver regenerates in this fashion if part of it is removed -- and we don't know why, nor how to translate that to the rest of the body.

To tamper with the "instruction set" within the cell without understanding this in full is inherently dangerous to a level that reaches ridiculous stupidity and is arguably criminal insanity, particularly when deployed on a population-wide basis instead of in very small groups of willing volunteers who all understand that the odds are very material the attempt is going to kill them.  The risk of doing this sort of thing is unbounded and worse, since it is unbounded the outcome in one person .vs. another is also unknown and unknowable at our current level of cellular machinery knowledge.  We know, for example, that while smoking causes lung (and other) cancers it does not do so in every person.  My Aunt Marg smoked like a damned chimney yet when she finally succumbed to old age at 94 what got her was kidney failure -- not cancer.  How and why despite putting several packs of smokes into her lungs daily no cancer occurred at a clinical level is a complete unknown yet that it happened is fact and I have the death certificate to prove it.  I would certainly not, on this basis, recommend that someone smoke.  But it is absolutely true that no medical person and no scientist can tell you why one person gets nailed and the other does not in this circumstance.  There is an answer to that question and if we discover it doing so would allow us to prevent every single smoking-related cancer death.

The problem is that until we do, along with all the other mysteries in this process that are of the same general sort tampering with the cellular machinery in the fashion these "therapies" and/or "vaccines" do is inherently dangerous and there is no way to exclude said risks because we cannot answer the question of why certain cellular changes happen on a scientific basis and thus we can't exclude that unwanted ones will occur when we deliberately screw around with the process itself.

Can this explain the sort of thing embalmers are reporting with "coffee grounds" and "long, stringy clot-like things" in cadavers post Covid jabs?  You bet.  What we can't explain is why it happens, but that it showed up at the same time the jabs did, and has not gone away, is strong evidence that something has dysregulated the body's cellular functions.  That material looks an awful lot like the sort of connective tissue that is supposed to be in other parts of the body or the fibrin structures that form blood clots (and in fact these structures are all over other parts of the body) yet should never, ever be in the circulation and absent screwed up cellular processes never is.

Never mind all sorts of other "gets this guy, but not that gal" types of damage at wildly-improbable ages (e.g. extremely aggressive cancers that historically do not get young people at all, or cancers that were under control and suddenly, post-jab become wildly-aggressive and non-responsive to our existing set of treatments) -- which we are in fact seeing.  That it doesn't happen to everyone in fact points to this sort of risk and reason for the appearance of these events just as the fact that we know smoking causes lung cancer but not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer.

Can I prove I'm right?  Nope.

But is it clear, obvious and undeniable that we do not understand the cellular machinery, differentiation and how to manipulate it successfully -- and as a direct result any attempt to manipulate it at genetic level, which all "vector" technologies do and in fact are their purpose and design are and will remain extremely dangerous, and thus should be absolutely banned unless the person in question (1) cannot reproduce and thus it is not possible for them to pass any possible damage to the next generation and (2) they are personally screwed (e.g. have cancer) and as a result such a "therapy" is a last-ditch attempt to keep what is otherwise inevitable death at bay until and unless we have a full and complete understanding of same sufficient to be able to hand out kidney-regrowing pills as McCoy did?

You bet.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

 

Or, if this is not to your particular liking, shop Black Friday here for more from my personal favorite artist.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



2022-11-23 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Investing , 1629 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Read this Twitter thread in full.

Today, we issued a final rule that allows retirement plan investors to take climate change and other environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into consideration when making investment decisions:

Oh really?

Did you not just see a prime example of what happens when "ESG" takes over a corporation?  Why, you did.  It's called Twitter.

Three quarters of the people, all hired with "ESG" in mind, were just fired by Musk who as a private owner has zero obligation to any such so-called "principle."  The various screaming parties in the ESG cult all predicted immediate doom and disaster.  No such disaster has occurred; the firm's only service it provides to the public is running just fine with one quarter of the staffing load -- and thus cost -- it used to have.

If you think Twitter is unique in this regard you're too stupid to have a retirement and deserve to lose every cent of whatever you claim to be "investing."

Let's put this in simple terms: If "ESG" is a net positive for a company then nobody has to exempt anything or make it a separate subject of consideration and in fact doing so is stupid because if it in fact makes the firm more competitive and operating at a lower cost per unit of output it wins all on its own.

What the Department of Labor has said by issuing this advisory is that your "retirement plan" can now be disadvantaged to any degree whatsoever, including losing all of it, when (not if) these "ESG" initiatives cause the firms invested in to underperform or fail outright and when that occurs you can't sue the plan provider for violating their fiduciary responsibility to you as the true owner of the asset.

In other words the Department of Labor is formally admitting that these "ESG" initiatives are not to the benefit of the firm's operating results and thus are also not to your benefit as an investor.  This fact has now become a formal admission by our Federal Government.

What's worse?  This "rule" amounts to an admission of collusive price-fixing -- albeit indirect -- between what are supposed to be competing firms.  Under 100+ year old law that is a serious criminal felony.

You will get screwed out of trillions of dollars over the coming years as a result of this and you are responsible for that screwing because you have and continue to permit this sort of rank corruption to take place without demanding it stop and backing up that demand with whatever is necessary to eliminate it.

So be it.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2022-11-22 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Macro Factors , 774 references
[Comments enabled]  

Said Chuckie:

“Now more than ever, we’re short of workers. We have a population that is not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to. The only way we’re going to have a good future in America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants, the Dreamers, and all of them, ‘cause our ultimate goal is to help the Dreamers but get a path to citizenship for all 11 million or however many undocumented that are here, and we will be pursuing that in the next Senate, in the Senate, the comprehensive immigration reform,” he said.

Well Chuck, that's because you've ruined incentives.

Chuck Schumer, as a powerful sitting Senator, is personally responsible in part for said ruination.  So are the other sitting Senators.  So have been the last several Presidents, including Trump and, at least, all the way back to Clinton.

When you ignore the border and bring in millions of people who work off the books and thus suppress wages you undercut the desire of Americans to produce children.  Thinking people consider whether they'll be able to raise a child with their own resources before choosing to make said child.  Unthinking people, specifically those incapable of higher thought processes or worse, psychopaths, don't care.  The problem here should be obvious in that both of those groups are incapable of productive output themselves.

The early 1980s inflation destroyed the two-parent, one-earner single-family home.  That destruction was deliberate; rather than tell the Arabs to stick it in their ass and mean it we instead forced women into the workforce and away from children and hearth.  Then we pedaled a rank lie: You can have it all girl, motherhood, career, a rich husband and lots of pearls without giving up anything.

This has always been and always will be crap.  All choices have costs and anyone trying to tell you otherwise is in fact arguing you should be given a capacity and impetus to steal. 

It cannot be otherwise.

Allowing the medical scheme to go from 3-4% of GDP to roughly 20% is a 15% tax on your real spendable income, assessed before taxes but hitting you afterward.  In other words because of how the system works (employer "insurance" payments are off the top line before taxes, yet you pay out-of-pocket with after-tax dollars) this effectively puts your entire blended tax rate, including both halves of Medicare and FICA, in front of personal health care spend.  I remind you that everyone who works has a roughly 15% tax rate from the first dollar in the form of FICA and Medicare tax, so if you're in the 10% Federal rate it's really 25%.

Bringing in "more immigrants" does not resolve this problem because as soon as you "regularize" said persons they can trivially determine the same thing and they too will stop having children for the same reason.  The exceptions are those who, once again, are either psychopathic or mentally compromised to a degree sufficient that they're not contributing much of anything to begin with.

If you want to know why millions of young people are choosing not to have children, or to have only one per couple (which is not enough, obviously, to replace the two of them) the answer is right there in your face.  Our society and government have made the choice to have children by the ordinary working-class people one that is virtually impossible to do with anything approaching full-time care for said children and the household they live in by one of the two adults.  Forcing the second adult out of the house in order to maintain the household did not occur due to "natural forces"; in fact technology has made it so that you can do more with less so it should have moved the bar in terms of required intelligence, drive and income to raise a family DOWNWARD rather than the other way.

Instead it became virtually impossible and the entire reason for it is the scams, thefts and frauds imposed by our government and those of other western nations.  The so-called "green energy" scheme is just another element of it; while battery-powered cars may sound nice digging a half-million pounds of earth up to produce one electric car battery, which is what's required, never mind the horror show ecologically that goes along with processing the lithium and slave child labor associated with the cobalt necessary to make said batteries is just another example.

In inflation-adjusted dollars the average new car in 1970 cost roughly one half as much in terms of median family income as it did in 2019 (its worse today.)  The median house cost $23,000 in 1970 .vs. median family income of $9,300, or to put it another way 2.47 years of income would pay for the house.

Today the median house price is $428,000 but median household income was $87,864 so you needed not 2.47 years of income but 4.87 years, or approximately twice as many working years to earn the house. 

The entire problem lies here in that while technological improvement, that is, productivity, is supposed to make our lives better as the definition of productivity is "doing more with less" over the last 50 years it has gone the other way with the cost of common and necessary components of civilized life in America doubling in real terms on a percentage-of-household income basis.  This in turn suppresses birth rates for the obvious reason that thinking people will not have children they cannot afford to raise.

If we had not allowed all of this expanding grift and scam over that same period of time in terms of income you could buy a home for your family with about 1.2x median household income and two cars for the percentage of income you spent on one in 1970.  Since every bit of productivity improvement comes from the people who are, of course, the ones who do more with less the benefit should go to the people and absent grift, scam and fraud, all of which can only be performed without going to jail if the government is involved we would have all kept same.  Large families would be the norm rather than the exception, financial stress in households would be half of what it was in 1970 and nobody would be complaining about "immigration" because we'd have no reason to admit anyone who didn't have either a hell of a lot of money to invest or a proved high-class IQ -- and likely both.

There is no answer to this found in importing more low-intelligence, low-education and thus low-capability people from nations without functional educational and technological infrastructure.  They will fill that gap for exactly one cycle at which point they realize the same thing -- that they can't afford to have kids and make the rent either -- and thus you've actually gone backward since they're more-likely to be below the median income line.

The only fix is to kneecap the scammers, starting with the myriad scams found in health care and, the new one, "green energy" of all stripes so that young couples of child-bearing age find themselves able to have children they can raise and support within their family units on one working-age person's wages while the other's full-time job is the home and kids.

This is a math problem folks and has been turned into a wild-eyed pack of lies by the political and "business" class, all of whom are extraordinarily invested in ripping you off.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)