The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
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.

So we have Louisiana poised to sign an anti-abortion Bill, Alabama has just passed one, and there are others.

On the other hand as I noted New York and Virginia started this latest round of insanity, with both states basically attempting to declare that a child in the process of being born could be aborted.  Then the US House refused to pass a bill that would require a fetus that survived an abortion attempt to be given medical care as a child.

I don't know how much more-clear you can get than that as to intent; the House clearly stated that a born infant, who was attempted to be aborted but survived, has no right to life even though it is now independently alive outside of the mother.

Essentially, the left -- all of it, including all elected Democrats in Congress, have declared that there is no such thing as a baby until and unless the mother declares that it is.  At any point prior to that declaration she can declare it nothing more than an unwanted growth irrespective of that "unwanted growth's" ability to survive independently, independently of her negligence, or independently of the random odds of survival, which said child beats, while she's actively trying to kill it.

Let's cut the crap; the left's position on this is transparent and obvious: A woman who doesn't want the financial and personal costs of raising a child must have the ability to evade that at any moment up to the baby's first breath, no matter what happens from that instant in time forward.  She may defer that decision through personal avarice, negligence or even intentional misconduct up to that moment in time and none of that bears on the merits of the decision.

At the same time a man has no rights whatsoever, even if his sperm is stolen from a used condom.

The far right's position is equally-clear: Your legs were open if a women or your pants off (or at least unzipped) if a man.  Tough crap; you undertook an adult act, now behave like an adult.  If you got raped that's unfortunate and a criminal act but even under that circumstance it's not the baby's fault so you don't get to kill the child.  Go after the rapist.

These are polar opposite positions.

The USSC in Roe, however, played Solomon and "split the baby" so to speak.

And when these laws get to the USSC, and they shall as they're intended to do exactly that it is my belief that the Court will do the logical and appropriate thing.

Specifically, I don't think Roe falls.  In fact I don't even believe that despite the statements from some of these state legislatures they expect Roe to fall.  They may wish it but I doubt very much they expect it to.

But I do believe the USSC will send back these laws with a remand consistent with Roe.

Let me remind you what Roe actually holds:

  • In the first trimester a woman has the presumption of supremacy for two reasons -- personal medical privacy and the fact that no 1st trimester fetus can survive outside the womb.  That is, the fetus is inextricably tied to the woman in question and if she acts as an adult, having undertaken an adult act or as a victim of a crime implicating an adult action forced upon her, she, in concert with a physician that elects to do so under his rules of conscience has the right to stop the progression that would otherwise lead to a birth.

  • In the second trimester there is a balance of harms and benefits to the woman which is left to the states to decide and regulate, with the exception found below (that is, a state cannot require a woman to sacrifice her life.)  That is, the people of the 50 states have the right to tilt the scale of supremacy in either direction provided they can justify it on the basis of maternal health. There are likely to be 50 different answers depending on the specifics of the circumstances found in said states -- and that's constitutional.  This balance of harms and benefits test is logical because any woman who desires to know she is pregnant before the expiration of the first trimester may discover same and by that point she has had a reasonable amount of time to contemplate the risks and benefits of both paths available to her in the context of both state law and the regulation of medical practices within a given state.

  • Beyond fetal viability (which is almost-exactly concordant with the start of the third trimester) the states have the right to put into law a presumption that the fetus has a right to live.  At this point the woman has decided either through negligence or intentional action to continue the pregnancy for two thirds of the requisite time.  In addition with each passing day it is increasingly likely that should there be a birth the child can survive independently of that specific woman; in other words it in the event of delivery said child is no more or less dependent than any other baby in that anyone can feed, clothe, diaper and protect it; there is no longer a biological requirement that a given specific woman do so.  Exactly where that line is changes over time but that it certainly occurs somewhere early in the third trimester is a fact.  However, even here the duty is not absolute: A woman is not required to sacrifice her life for said soon-to-be--infant, any more than you are required to stop and render aid to a motorist in a crash.  In fact there is no circumstance, not even under admiralty law on the sea, where you're required to sacrifice your own life to save another.  You may choose to, but you're not required to.  Therefore absent such a clear requirement in trade -- life-for-life or clear and convincing evidence that the mother will have her health severely and even permanently harmed -- states are fully within their rights to bar as a matter of law all third-trimester abortions.

That's what Roe found folks.  It did not confer an absolute right to an abortion at any time.  The Supreme Court has never issued such a ruling.


The screaming liars on the left have claimed that Roe in fact goes all the way to birth -- and even during birth.  This is flat-out nonsense.  Here is what was actually held in Roe, from the actual text of the decision:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

There is no unrestricted right to abortion, as found by Roe, beyond the first trimester.


A State may therefore find that abortion beyond the end of the first trimester implicates maternal health, including mental health, damaging same, and so regulate it -- including a prohibition except where the manifest trade-off mitigates otherwise.

A state may not, in other words, enact a law that requires a pregnant woman to sacrifice herself for the fetus she is carrying.  However, beyond the first trimester a state may find as its legislature determines on the balance of harms.

Further, since the states are explicitly in Roe reconfirmed in their power to license physicians and thereby set standards for the conduct of medical practice the State can determine what appropriate medical judgement is -- in other words a State is fully within its rights to declare, for example, that "health" in this context means severe and permanent physical disability (for example) and not something such as "well she doesn't have any money therefore that implicates her health."

The State is also empowered to prohibit any and all abortions not performed by a physician defined by the licensing and practice scheme within in the State.

Note that fetal viability is medically defined as the point where there is a 50% rate of survival.  This is approximately 24-25 weeks or during the sixth month of pregnancy.  By the 27th week the rate of survival is roughly 90% and survival beyond that is >95%.

Therefore an appropriate remand on such a law at the USSC would be:

  • Prohibitions on abortion at a state level prior to the passage of three months from last menstruation are inconsistent with Roe and void.

  • Prohibitions at a state level beyond three months may be enacted provided they comport with state-licensed medical practice rules that protect maternal health, provided that they cannot require a woman to continue to carry a pregnancy that, in the reasonable opinion of licensed physicians, will kill her.

  • States may, beyond fetal viability, which is approximately congruent with the third trimester, ban the procedure entirely except where the mother's life or, congruent with the above objective medical licensing standards, serious maternal health issues are implicated.  Note that this does not create a "carve out" for economic or speculative impact (e.g. "psychology") such as, for example where a fetus is known to have a material but survivable defect or deformity.  A state may choose to permit abortion in such a circumstance but is not required to permit it.

That's what I expect the USSC to hold as it is entirely consistent with Roe and yet at the same time upholds most of what these states seek to do.  As such "heartbeat" laws are likely unconstitutional -- but just barely, by a couple of weeks, and as such instructions on a remand would move that barrier to 14 weeks after the initiation of last menstruation.

That decision would in fact not eviscerate Roe -- such a judgment would reconfirm Roe, and leave the States in the position of setting enforceable and definitive medical standards and licensing requirements defining the balance of harms tests for maternal health and the protection (or lack thereof) for fetal life which they are explicitly empowered under Roe to do.

It would "reset" and underline what has been a rampant and outrageous pack of lies by the left as to what Roe actually held -- a good thing that has been needed for the last three decades -- while at the same time moving the barrier on the "heartbeat" people to a legally-defensible place in conformity with Roe itself.  While that change would be significant all-in the states that enacted "heartbeat" legislation would likely find it to be a win as they'd get 90% of what they enacted and which is almost-exactly what Roe first put into place.

Alabama would be the sole exception: they would be forced to accept Roe "as written."

In addition such a decision does not implicate the 1st Amendment (e.g. establishment) where a decision to toss Roe would have severe trouble in that regard.  The Establishment Clause issue can probably be worked around but there's utterly no reason for the Court to twist themselves into knots to go there, and as a result I don't expect them to.

We'll see.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-05-19 08:48 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 213 references
[Comments enabled]  

I love the long-winded excuses in this article....

Countries around the world that engaged in unsustainable spending and borrowing, like Argentina and Greece, have defaulted on their debt. While the United States is unlikely to default by becoming unable to pay its creditors because it prints its own money, it can default on the value of its debt in other ways, namely through inflation. Inflation is default by other, less direct means, however. Instead of default on debt by failure to pay creditors sufficient currency, default by inflation occurs by devaluing the currency, thus returning less value to creditors than they had initially loaned money over to the government.

Extreme inflation, especially when it appears suddenly and occurs with significant magnitude, disrupts economic activities and can cause a recession with grave financial consequences for businesses and workers. Moreover, inflation destroys the savings of Americans, taxing them by reducing the value of every dollar in their savings account. The United States can avoid fiscal collapse by adjusting the policies that are driving the country deeper into debt. The primary culprits here are social and economic programs that have been growing out of control for decades.


Despite the different nature of the programs, Medicare and Social Security are by far the most significant drivers of the impending fiscal collapse. As the federal budget becomes further unsustainable, change is inevitable. Lawmakers should approach these changes with deliberation and reform current policies gradually to enable the American people to adjust to them without doing unnecessary harm. Not reforming is not an option.

Again, this is crap.

And from a political "journalism" outfit like The Hill it is not only unacceptable it should be met with felony criminal charges of intentional fraud.

Social Security can be "resolved" at a reasonable adjustment to the tax rate, earnings cap or both.  Specifically, it would be cash-flow neutral by increasing "both halves" to 7%, or by lifting the cap somewhat (where you stop paying), or some combination of the two.  On an actuarial basis Social Security is reasonably sound; while it currently has a functional deficit of about 11% that's within the realm of reason to correct.

There is no way to make Medicare sound within the realm of the current taxation and spending paradigm.  It was designed for an environment where medical spending was ~4% of GDP.  Medical spending has advanced by five hundred percent since then, most of it through felony price-fixing and other violations of 15 USC Chapter 1, exactly none of which the government has punished.

A standard vaginal birth hasn't changed as to its essence since human beings first walked the earth.  The last "big thing" with regard to routine vaginal births was the epidural to reduce pain in the final states of labor which has been in active use for decades.  Inflated to the purchasing power of today's dollars from the year of my birth you should be able to have a child in a hospital, with a two or three night stay, all-in including the epidural and care for both the infant and mother at a cost of about $1,000 right here, right now.  But the actual price today is at least 5x that high and often 10x as much for a routine uncomplicated vaginal birth and they throw both mother and child out same day

In other words you get much less and pay 5-10x more.

You're being robbed.  Period.

No worker made the decision to not indict the hospital administrators, drug companies and doctors for rampant price-fixing and other violations of 15 USC Chapter 1.  All workers are forced to pay into Medicare and were not parties to any of this fraud and felony.

It would require close to a 500% tax increase to bring Medicare into functional, long-term solvency.  That's socially and fiscally impossible; attempting it would lead to an immediate, violent revolt as mathematically the incremental impact on the poor and middle class would render every member of both instantly and permanently destitute.  There are simply not enough rich people nor do they have enough money combined to attempt to levy the impact upon them.

If the government tries to screw the people to maintain the fraud in the system they paid into on a good-faith basis then the government should be removed and replaced -- with all of the fraudsters imprisoned.  If the government refuses to leave then we should contemplate whether it's time for 1776 Part II, given that this fraud now reaches $3 trillion on a yearly basis, or $25/per-person/per day and then on top of it the government proposes to steal the paid-in premiums which you have forcibly had taken from you for your entire working life.  If there is a just cause for actual no-bull**** rebellion stealing one dollar in five spent by every single citizen in the nation and reneging on a paid-in insurance plan which they government has intentionally allowed to go bankrupt due to fraud and felony while both cheering on the theft and screwing the people blind damn well ought to be it.

I repeat: If this is nonsense is resolved and the monopolies and other scams in the medical field are stopped Medicare is not broke; in fact the federal budget, without a single tax increase, immediately and permanently goes into surplus and over time the accumulated debt will all be retired.

These are mathematical facts.  The Hill doesn't mention any of them.  One such plan to do so is found here.

Is The Hill's intentional combination of Social Security, which can be reasonably-easily fixed with Medicare, which cannot without stopping the medical scams -- all of them --  because they're apologists for an entire industry full of felons and wish to be lumped in with them when the collapse that will occur if we continue to pretend that these issues are linked and thus refuse to address them comes?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Sarah has made some price changes and this is the last day of her art sale which is cumulative with them.  So have a look over here and, if anything you see catches your fancy email her as her post indicates -- there are some really good deals to be had!


View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-05-18 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 312 references
[Comments enabled]  

Neither Democrat or Republican can do a damn thing about it either.

The total fertility rate, the number of babies a woman of childbearing age is expected to have over her lifetime, is currently at 1.72 — 2% lower than in 2017. It's also notably below the 2.1 fertility rate required for one generation to perfectly replace the next.

Neither party will or has done anything about this chart, which is the root of the issue:


Note that this is not adjusted for population change; take another percent off, roughly, for that -- all of which is immigration, most of it illegal.

That is there has not been any real economic expansion since 2000.

This only accounts for federal government debt.

When one accounts for that, plus state and local, plus unsecured (credit card and student loan) debt it's much worse; the nation has been in decline on an income-per-capita basis when adjusted for inflation since 1980!

Government has always taken the "hand out or promise more free stuff to more people" approach.  But government has nothing to hand out, so therefore it must either steal (tax) it first or print more debt which forcibly steals from everyone.

There should have been a general strike or worse long ago.

But there wasn't, and still isn't, even though the worst of the scams are in the health care sector where the cost of care is 500% what it should be in any sort of market economic system, all of that is illegal under 100+ year old felony criminal law and yet at most we see "lawsuits" which simply force the cost of the judgments, if there are any, to be paid by the citizens instead of the people who did the wrong!

As just one example current statistics are that 90% of medical bills are "wrong"; you're either billed for something that never happened at all or you're billed at a higher price.  These "errors" are statistically never in your favor, which puts the lie to them being "mistakes"; they are in fact intentional fraud.  In any other line of business if 90% of the bills were inflated or attempted to collect for things never provided the entire industry would have been deemed a racketeering enterprise and felony criminal prosecutions would be occurring daily.  I dare you to find me one such prosecution.

You can't cost-shift a prison sentence -- if you go to prison you go.  In other words in every case a prison sentence falls on the person convicted and nobody else since you can't make someone else pay your sentence by going to jail for you!  But any time you fine a company the firm can cost-shift that fine to consumers -- and does.

Thus Wells ****You is still in business despite multiple, serial rip-offs of consumers both leading up to the housing bust and then again in multiple instances afterward.  Not one criminal indictment was leveled against executives or the firm itself.  Years ago I wrote an article that documented the fact that virtually every large financial institution had either been found guilty or pled guilty three times or more to various criminal (felony!) offenses.  If that was you then the "three strikes" laws would have put you in prison for the rest of your natural life yet these firms continue to operate; not one corporate charter has been revoked and not one executive is sitting in a prison cell.

The people should have before and should now go on a general strike immediately.  Given that the US economy is a $20 trillion thing and the government is utterly reliant on it to not only pay taxes but to sell debt on the future of taxability if they tried to "cover up" such a strike and the severe impact on federal tax receipts with money printing they'd have a failed series of Treasury Auctions within weeks and be forced to cut that crap out lest interest rates immediately go to double digits and consume the entirety of the federal budget.  If The Fed tired to "buy" its way out the reality of that action would be instantly apparent to all other buyers of said debt and the markets would collapse.

The people hold the ability, at any time, to put an instant stop to all these scams via this entirely peaceful and lawful mechanism.

But they haven't.

What they have done, however, is go on a birth strike.

Why would you make new life -- children -- if you believe that the government's policies and the actions of your nation are going to leave your kids in a worse position, possibly catastrophically worse, than you are?

You wouldn't.

And women aren't.

You can't force people to procreate.

You can't lead intelligent people to believe that hand-outs and more government largesse will both work and lead to overall prosperity when the people see their budgets getting destroyed with health care scams and schemes, along with politicians threatening to not only tax people but take away their ability to defend themselves while at the same time stoking a race war.

Never mind the fact that the SJW and "trans" lie has now destroyed girls and women's sports; when fully half of all born children have essentially been told that they can never win any sporting contest ever again because any time a boy wants to he can claim to be a girl and steal said contest from her -- never mind her being forced to share a locker room in school with a boy sporting a pair of balls and a penis!  Why would you want to bring a child into the world who has a 50% chance of being a girl and thus disadvantaged, permanently, from even childhood happiness so that a tiny fraction of a percent of boys can take advantage of said kid?

We are far enough below replacement birth rates that within the next generation the entirety of the "growth" model will be laid bare upon the table as a bald-faced lie and if the government responds by throwing open the border to unskilled third world invaders then even with monstrous money-printing GDP will crash; when said invaders cannot be satiated with hand-outs for which there is no money the crime spree that inevitably follows will turn America's cities into smoking remnants of what they once were.

Changing people's attitudes on creating children cannot be done quickly -- it takes years if not decades to do that.

We may already be past the point where corrective action is possible in a meaningful fashion, but if we continue down the present path within the next few years interest payments on the federal debt alone will crowd out enough other spending that there will be utterly nobody left in doubt as to where this is headed, and between that and the 2024 hard wall on both Medicare and Medicaid which will come just a couple of years later there will be no meaningful and rational alternative remaining to either government or the people.

What will remain is what's called a dirty Civil War, which is exactly where we're headed and intelligent, child-bearing-age women in this nation are not stupid.  They see it coming and they have no intention of bringing children into that world to be abused by all of the existing ****heads already here, including most-especially those in Washington DC and the SJW clownshow.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-05-17 09:22 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 158 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's an old article but Boobus Americanus needs several whacks with a 2x4 to the head, it seems.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — As a pharmaceutical company run by US Sen. Joe Manchin’s daughter faces scrutiny for hiking prices on life-saving allergy injection pens, Manchin is remaining mum.

The Democratic West Virginia senator’s daughter, Heather Bresch, is CEO of Mylan, which manufactures EpiPens.

Remember that?

Of course you don't.  Manchin is still in office, you haven't laid siege to his house nor that of his daughter, and exactly how many people have gone to prison under 15 USC Chapter 1 in the medical industry?  That would be ZERO.

Remember, this was reported on before the 2016 election.  It had been going on for years at that point, all the while Demoncraps were crowing about how wonderful Obamacare was and Rethuglicans were passing dozens of "repeal" bills which they knew Obama would veto.

Trump promised to stop all this bull**** with no fewer than three bullet points on his campaign web site, and he could have on the day of his inauguration by directing the DOJ to start indicting people.

He didn't (said bullet points disappeared literally on the night of the election) and still hasn't done a damn thing, instead spending his "twitter" capital on bitching about being spied on (which did happen, and appears to have been illegal.)

But Trump hasn't done one thing about the financial rape job you're subjected to daily by the medical industry.

Just as Obama didn't.

Just as Manchin's progeny profited tremendously.

And you, Boobus Americanus, think "Medicare for All" will solve any part of this, just as you thought Obamacare would let you "keep your doctor."  You let Mickey Mc****ell, Nancy Pelosuck, Chucky ****mer, Maximum WateryCrap and Adam Schitt continue to bray on about this or that while you're financially raped blind on a daily basis -- $25 per day, per-person in the United States.

You already know damn well that both Democrat and Republican will simply continue to rob you blind.  You have hard proof right in front of you in the form of a daughter of a sitting Senator who did exactly that under a Democrat administration and continues to be a free and very wealthy woman today.

GFY with a rusty chainsaw folks until you find your pitchfork and torch -- that is, if you're not so ******ned obese and out of shape you can't manage to lift either one.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)