The Market Ticker - Cancelled
What 'They' Don't Want Published
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog
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 any firm or security discussed here, 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 be complete (NOT a "pitch"), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. Pitch emails missing the above will be silently deleted. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2023-09-24 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Other Voices , 125 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is the easiest damn fishing I'z ever done.....gotta love it, just kicking back on the boat with a cold one or three and watching 'em flop on the deck.  That reminds me -- better get off my ass and put 'em in the cooler before they start to go off.....  Thanks Ish' --- Ed

 

 

Previous installments covered the two most important responsibilities every adult has: eliminating toxic people and time management. Another touched on how much responsibility we have for other adults in our lives. Now it’s time to face the mirror.  There are a lot of strengths and weaknesses reflected back.  Concentrate on the former instead of the latter or clown world wins.

Ultimately every aspect of an adult's life is their responsibility. Not everything is an individual’s fault, but everyone chooses what to deal with and how. Ignoring a problem is valid. After all, there are only so many hours in the day and everyone has different priorities. Often one particular crisis rises to the top and preempts everything else.  This is why time management and taking out the trash are crucial.  Those two actions reduce chaos and free up mental energy for making real improvements.  Otherwise life devolves into a series of triage moments, always dealing with emergencies instead of growth.

Personal growth is a third adult responsibility.

Outside of catastrophes, selecting what to improve is as important as how.  Some aspects are under an individual's control, some can be influenced, and some are random. It is important to discern properly, because only things that can be changed or influenced are worth effort. Also be wary of mislabeling something “random” when it is not.  Pouring energy into things that cannot be changed while ignoring those that can causes suffering and wastes time.  This is as bad as employing a doomed solution to a fixable situation. 

What should someone work on?  Even when not dealing with immediate disaster, it’s the same alert system:  Look for physical or emotional pain points.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t point to a solution, that’s up to the individual to discover.

This is where an internal versus external locus of control matters. People with an external locus of control blame everything and everyone else for their problems. They are losers.  Nothing is their fault or responsibility, nor can they change their circumstances.  People with an internal locus of control take responsibility and change their lives. Which one are you? Who do you want to hang around?  Who will be reliable in a crisis?

Externally focused people will push their problems onto those internally focused.  It’s a good solution for them, someone who accomplishes things will babysit!  Unfortunately, losers drag the caregiver down the failure vortex along with them.

Never be more invested in an adult's outcome than they are.

A Health At Every Size adherent has an external locus of control. The entire belief system rests on one tenant: Weight is completely random.  This is very liberating for human failures.  It’s not the food. It's genetics, magic, and/or medical conditions that make them fat.  They don’t even eat, calories appear out of the air!  They, like every other addict, are slowly committing suicide.  If you have someone like this in your life, do not put more effort into their health than they do.  Instead, concentrate on your own self improvement.

A good way to develop an internal locus of control is sticking with an exercise program.  Going for a walk every day proves to the face in the mirror yes, you can. 

Real self-improvement and responsibilities aren’t flashy. They’re sweaty, gritty, hard work, and boring. It’s a slog.  An internal locus of control is crucial or when the “fun” wears off, so does the new habit. It also removes other people from the equation.  There is nothing wrong with an accountability partner, but what if they aren’t as serious as you?  Ideally people have support for changing their lives, but we’re living through a social collapse.  

Relying on a “gym buddy” for motivation to lift at 6 AM on Wednesday might fail.  Setting good habits like going to sleep early on Tuesdays sets up success. Each step in the process reinforces an internal locus of control: deciding to lift, setting a schedule, going to bed early, pumping iron.  

Health is a common thing to procrastinate. It's understandable, these problems happen gradually and there's often another immediate issue to deal with. Eventually time runs out and diabetes, heart disease, or kidney problems arrives. The good news is health is almost always something you can influence if not out and out control. You determine if you get type 2 diabetes or not. If you already have it, you can put it in remission.  Not your doctor, not big Pharma, you. You can influence how long you live with Type 1 diabetes by eating an extremely low carb diet. There are many conditions that can be managed. None of it is easy, but it is possible and necessary for staying on this mortal coil. 

Responsibility is a moment to moment choice.  If you want a competent tribe, decide to grow, to do the thing every day and draw in other self-reliant people. 

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2023-09-19 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Environment , 450 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

There was a march this weekend for exactly that in NYC.

It was rather amusing to watch people parading around arguing for being disrobed, for the street they walk on to not exist, to have no means to get to and from same, for the signs and markers used to make them to not exist and in fact to not have the free time to march at all.

Oh, and to slaughter a few billion people world-wide as well.

You see, without fossil fuels the shoes said people were wearing would not exist.  Remove them now, jackass, and set your own example.

The street would not exist either; asphalt is made out of oil, so you would be walking a dirt street.

Said street would be covered in horse piss, because there are no cars, trucks and similar -- and somehow goods have to get places in quantities that a human cannot carry; ergo, you must use beasts.  Fine, but said beast will piss and crap wherever it is at the time.  You can capture the crap with a diaper, but not the piss.  Thus you will walk in it.

You would not be there because the vehicle you used to get there would not exist.  Oh, you say, we'd use electric trains and such.  Fine, except without petroleum there are no insulators for the wires and thus there are no electric vehicles either.  You could probably use steam without petroleum inputs (there are biological alternatives for seals and oils, for example), but what do you intend to burn to make the steam?  I thought you didn't like burning things?  As for the oils most of those marching have plenty; we'll use them for the source.

There would be no cellphones. Virtually every component in them requires petroleum to manufacture it. The screen, processor, battery, case, sealants, connectors, antennas and more.  If you oppose "fossil fuels" take your cellphone (and computer; same issues) and throw them both in the trash immediately.  In a no-fossil-fuel world they will not exist so you might as well get started now.  Oh, this applies to that nice flat-screen TV you own too.  Throw it out.  You're not a pig and a climate-criminal, are you?

If you're a man you would have no time to march at all because without fertilizers (all you'd have to fertilize with is what comes out of the back of your horse, ox or similar) your crop yields would be a fraction of what they are now.  Without fossil fuels you cannot pump anywhere near the quantity of water now consumed, nor till the land with other than said beasts and there are no pesticides.  All this makes some people happy right up until they realize that now you must work said land by hand and raise small animals to survive, leaving you no time to go wave signs in a city.

If you're a woman you get to join said man in the field because you must produce too or you will starve.  The only exception is if you're literally barefoot and pregnant, thus unable.  The man in that case (and you better keep him around or you and your young children are dead of said starvation) in fact winds up doing your work in exchange for pussy.  So much for your "feminism"; it only works out when there's a lot of economic surplus and hard manual labor is not required to eat, doesn't it?

Oh, but you say, I won't have kids and don't need a husband.  Fair enough.  In 20 or 30 years your body will be broken down from said hard work (as will the man's) -- now who's going to provide enough food for you to eat?  You can't do it anymore yourself and you considered bearing children to be a "burden" unworthy of your "fine sensibilities"; well, unlike today that gets you dead as you get a bit older; nobody 20 years old and able-bodied with a working dick will choose you as the beneficiary of their extra work.  You can't give them children anymore even if you managed to remain sexually attractive and you didn't create any children who, you hope, might have gratitude for the fact that you fed them off your tits for their first months of life!  Oops.

Electricity?  What's that?  You banned "fossil fuels" which means no insulation, no fiberglass to make windmill blades and no solar panels.  A crude metal windmill might produce a bit of power sometimes, and might be able to pump your well water.  When the wind blows.  But without insulation and the oil to go into a transformer you can't move said energy anywhere useful beyond your own small homestead, nor distribute it. 

You get ill.  You want to go to the doctor but he has no medicines; they're all made in some part with fossil fuels.  Organic and inorganic molecular synthesis relies on it.  Never mind IV tubing (vinyl and silicone), the bag to contain the IV (plastic), injection equipment (plastic), the mask you demand someone wear (blown plastic fiber) and more.  Oh, and let's not forget anesthetics; you do know why the ORs were on the top floor of hospitals before they existed, yes?  (Hint: It has to do with not being able to hear the screams from persons operated on without them!)   Ban exploitation of fossil fuels and none of that exists and we're back in the dark ages medically.  Congratulations, we'll send the Priest over to try to banish the evil spirits making you sick.  It probably won't work.

Then it becomes cold.  You know, winter?  How did you say you were going to stay warm again?  You didn't think about that, did you?  You die -- you literally freeze to death.

Modern civilization exists because of the exploitation of carbon.  I don't care if you like it or not; facts don't care about your feelings and banning exploitation of carbon will kill people in size along with collapsing the economy.

No person who argues for this has any business being anywhere near the levers of power, including RFK who has publicly declared he will do so.  He has publicly declared himself a mass-murdering psychotic asshole who has no business in any policy role, period.

And so has every single one of the idiots who marched over the weekend.

You're entitled to be nuts and screw yourself as a consequence.  Its a free country, and even taking personal actions that result in your own death is in fact a right you possess.

But you're not entitled to screw others, and if you credibly threaten to do so we all have a collective and individual right to stop you.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2023-09-18 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Musings , 262 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Oh I know, now I did it.

Peter approached Jesus and asked him,
"Lord, if my brother sins against me,
how often must I forgive?
As many as seven times?"
Jesus answered, "I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times.
That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king
who decided to settle accounts with his servants.
When he began the accounting,
a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount.
Since he had no way of paying it back,
his master ordered him to be sold,
along with his wife, his children, and all his property,
in payment of the debt.
At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said,
'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.'
Moved with compassion the master of that servant
let him go and forgave him the loan.
When that servant had left, he found one of his fellow servants
who owed him a much smaller amount.
He seized him and started to choke him, demanding,
'Pay back what you owe.'
Falling to his knees, his fellow servant begged him,
'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'
But he refused.
Instead, he had the fellow servant put in prison
until he paid back the debt.
Now when his fellow servants saw what had happened,
they were deeply disturbed, and went to their master
and reported the whole affair.
His master summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant!
I forgave you your entire debt because you begged me to.
Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant,
as I had pity on you?'
Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers
until he should pay back the whole debt.
So will my heavenly Father do to you,
unless each of you forgives your brother from your heart."

So let's analyze.

A King had a Treasury (collected via taxes and various fees) which, he on occasion, loaned out with the expectation of being paid back.  This Treasury, being not in circulation, had no economic impact on supply and demand -- and thus on price.

He made such a loan (or, more likely but the Gospel does not say, a series of such loans) but he was imprudent, and in fact the borrower had no capacity to pay.

This loan, being made in the first instance, was highly inflationary; it added to the supply of circulating currency in the realm, which of course shifts the supply and demand curve and thus results in higher prices.

But, if the loan was prudent and could be repaid, when it is paid the curve shifts back in exactly the same amount, so the inflationary impulse is temporary.  This is a question of balance and timing, but not ultimate effect.

That person to whom the King made the loan in turn loaned part of what he was loaned to another, and that second person could not pay either.  The original King, discovering that he had refused to continue to "pay it forward" and leave the inflationary impact in the economy took out his wrath on the original borrower -- despite the alleged original point of the Gospel (and the First Reading, from Sirach, stating that one must not utilize wrath at all!)

Hypocrisy strike #1; apparently the ban on wrath and anger do not apply to persons in political power.

But the much-larger hypocrisy was found in what Jesus allegedly taught regarding said King in that his "forgiveness" of the loan was no such thing at all.  The King, by his actions, forcibly screwed every other person in the kingdom by placing an inflationary impulse into the kingdom's economy in the form of increasing the money supply without any work being done of equivalent value in exchange for it.  Further, as King he can re-tax it to refill his Treasury for which he is not required to do any work and if he does he screws the people not once, but twice!

This, allegedly, "Christ commands."

Well, if he really did and this is not an abomination of Christ's teachings by man, then he in fact commanded you to screw not just your neighbor but, if you're in a position of political power, to screw everyone else for the benefit of the favored few, or the one -- specifically said person in power.

The correct response of the people who are under such a "King" is to decapitate him for the deceptive act of screwing each and every one of them by subterfuge and fiat, a punishment assessed upon them without the precedent of a crime.

Of course were Christ to have taught that -- a King who deliberately tampers with the economy to benefit a favored few who he allegedly claimed were "servants" or "patrons" yet in fact got to cheat in the economy compared to everyone else; they got fabulously rich while everyone else got the scraps, should be dragged out of his castle and decapitated in the middle of the town square -- we won't have all the economic problems we have today..... would we?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2023-09-16 08:44 by Karl Denninger
in Other Voices , 124 references
[Comments enabled]  

Wow -- this new-fangled fishing courtesy of Ishmael is better than new math!  I didn't even have to start the boat this time -- just got in a cracked a beer.  I wonder if the beer is necessary?  Well, if its not that's ok; I'll claim it is because I like drinking 'em.... -- Ed

 

The first parts of this series explored responsibilities we have to ourselves: eliminating toxic people and time management.  But we don’t live in a vacuum. We interact with other people, including those we very much care about. 

How much responsibility do we bear for other adults and what should that look like?  This is something I’ve wrestled with for a long time. Before the knee-jerk reaction of no adult is responsible for anyone else, consider lifeguards. 

An electrician is responsible for properly wiring a circuit for safety.  Part of his job is looking out for others.  Ditto for police, medical staff, and even the illegal preparing your food.  Every time he washes salmonella off his hands he’s fulfilled his obligation. Society continues because Nice Productive People take their responsibilities seriously enough to prevent other Nice Productive People from rioting.

So spare me the histrionics of pretending you live on a remote island completely apart from human contact.  You’re reading this, which means you look to somebody else for your entertainment. And I better not waste your time.  

Clearly we do bear a certain degree of responsibility for others beyond the bare minimum at work. Watching loved ones struggle is particularly hard, and if they’d just listen to advice…Or so we tell ourselves.  Some are primed for guilt, including for things they didn’t directly cause. How many of us tried to convince others not to get the shots or to take Covid prophylactics and failed? Or tried for years to convince people to change?  Would different phrasing have changed their minds?  How much is our fault?  Did we try hard enough?

Similar questions keep me up at night.  

Recent Mass readings touched on this topic (Ezekiel 33:7-9, Romans 13:8-10, and Matthew 18:15-20), so divine intervention changed this guest Ticker’s focus and answered some of those questions.  

The first part of the Ezekiel reading is justification for managing someone’s life because it’s “for their own good.”  We want what is best for our loved ones. However it ends with

But if you warn the wicked,
trying to turn him from his way,
and he refuses to turn from his way,
he shall die for his guilt,
but you shall save yourself.

This states that another’s actions are not ultimately our responsibility.

Romans 13:10 is often quoted by itself.
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Love does no evil to the neighbor;
hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

This is one of my least favorite verses in the Bible because of the way it is twisted.  It is often quoted by itself as justification for unlimited immigration, doing away with the death penalty, or that expecting people to pull their own weight is a sin.  Put it another way, this verse provides camouflage for cowards to hide behind divine word and abscond from their responsibilities. An even worse interpretation implies duties that never existed.  So fuck you if you said this. Your words are partially responsible for a million deaths and counting.

How do we love our neighbor, and what are our responsibilities? It’s right there in the three readings: Warning, then allowing consequences.  Consequences are a natural result of actions, whether they are obvious or not.  Ideally, they are nonfatal.  Sadly, in the Coof Wars they were and are deadly. 

The Gospel reading laid out our responsibility:  warning people three times is enough.  First by ourselves, then with another, and finally with an authority.  If the neighbor hasn’t listened by then, they ain’t gonna.  But you have fulfilled your duties.

We have a duty to warn of consequences, but are not responsible for behavior.  Nor is it possible for us to change his actions.  All such change must come from within.

Allowing consequences to happen means we are under no obligation to shield them. Some people only learn from personal experience.  And sometimes it hurts as much to watch results arrive upon another as suffer them ourselves.  Knowing you tried won’t take away that pain, but these recent Bible readings tell us there’s no reason to feel guilty about another’s choices.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

Category thumbnail

Seriously, you really are fucking stupid if you take any more of these shots, and worse, you may have screwed yourself if you took the previous ones.

That's not my data or claim, its actually the CDC's data and statement:

 

If you took the jabs with or without boosting only a very recent (less than three months) booster had a positive effect.  Taking the originals or being boosted further in the past than that actually makes you MORE LIKELY to wind up in the hospital.

NOT just get a cold or mild flu -- get screwed.

This is among people with normal immune systems so the claim that "well some people are compromised so maybe it didn't work as well in them" doesn't wash either as this is specifically among those who HAD functioning immune systems and then got jabbed which, it is now clear from the CDC's own data, DAMAGED their immune response.

This is in addition to the "side effects" that include myocarditis and other circulatory disorders which the CDC admits occur.

We already knew, more than a year ago, that the effectiveness of the falsely-labelled "vaccines" (they're not) didn't prevent infection and turned negative -- that is, made it more-likely that you'd get the virus itself, within a few months.  The absolute last pillar of the claims out of the CDC was that if you took them, even if you got the virus anyway, it would keep you out of the hospital.

Now, by their own data, that's only true for a short period of time and then that goes negative as well which means you are now forced to submit to continuing doses, perhaps on a permanent basis, in order to avoid the increased risk of winding up seriously ill in the hospital and in addition you are more-likely to get the virus itself.

This may be permanent and since it is reasonable to assume that the risk of severe or fatal side effects from the jabs are dose-dependent -- that is, you get a new roll of the dice on that with every additional one you take, if you took the originals you are now in the situation where not only must you continue to avoid a higher risk of getting hospitalized from a virus that is more likely to make you sick than someone who refused but you are also at the cumulative additional risk, which we have no data on whether it is simply additive or (God forbid) exponential with each new dose of a serious or fatal side effect.

IMHO you have to be out of your mind to continue with more jabs because eventually the odds are rather good that your number is going to come up for one of those fatal or serious side effects.  To accept that risk once in exchange for lifetime immunity that keeps you out of the hospital or dead from the disease might have been a reasonable bargain, depending on your particular risk profile.

That is the argument for basically all the "childhood" vaccines; you accept the risk of a quite-rare but serious or fatal side effect from the MMR, DPT and Polio shots, for example, in exchange for lifetime immunity not only from serious outcomes but from getting symptomatic disease at all.

We knew this was almost certainly not true for the Covid shots before they rolled out because it was never part of the original EUA criteria -- even though Biden and everyone else, including Trump, said that in fact you wouldn't get the virus if you took them.  That rapidly proved to be complete CRAP and as soon as it did prove to be a lie every single person pushing this shit on people should have been dragged out into the town square by their hair AND HANGED.

We had proof the claims were a lie within months -- groups of a dozen or more people who virtually all had allegedly-rare "breakthrough" cases after being jabbed which was statistically impossible if the injections actually worked as claimed.

But now the last leg of the stool, on which anyone's argument that anyone should take these, has been destroyed as you were, as I suspected might happen, sold on a "subscription model" and when you quit you are visited with increasing and possibly permanently-so risk of being screwed.

Not just sickened but screwed in the form of being hospitalized OR WORSE.

smiley

View this entry with comments (opens new window)