The Market Ticker - Cancelled
What 'They' Don't Want Published
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. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.


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.

2022-06-30 07:45 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 5050 references
[Comments enabled]  

The Internet sure thinks so.

When expressed in “sigmas”, units of standard deviation, the 23.24% drop in the birth rate in Taiwan is a 26-sigma event!

What's particularly eyebrow-raising is that this is not confined to one place and is correlated quite-nastily with jab percentage in multiple nations, specifically also in Germany.

I will repeat a caution I've put forward before: Correlation is not proof of causation.

For instance it has been known for quite some time that people with Alzheimer's have an abundance of plaques that, the claim goes, interfere with neural transmission and are essentially the cause of the disease.  Therefore pharma has spent a lot of money trying to come up with drugs that either prevent or remove said plaques.  Makes sense, right?  Remove or prevent the plaques, the disease goes away -- or at least does not progress.

Except.... the premise has now been proved false, not that this stopped people from making a lot of money chasing a blown theory.  And our government's "regulatory agencies" have knowingly endorsed that.

You see, we recently had an Alzheimer's drug approved that reliably and statistically reduced said plaques but it did nothing to reverse or slow the cognitive decline.  The drug failed to show statistical improvement against placebo on cognitive capacity and yet it was approved anyway.

So now we know that Alzheimer's is not caused by these plaques because removing them neither arrests or reverses the condition.  Therefore its not the cause.  Period.

But there was money to be made, you see..... so it was.  Even though the drug proved worthless against the only thing that matters -- whether your cognitive capacity continues to be damaged on a progressive basis.  The FDA approved it anyway, despite knowing it did not stop disease progression.  They approved a proved worthless drug and pharma, of course, will make the money from it despite the fact that it does nothing to improve (say much less cure) the primary indication.

If you think this is a lone event -- nope.  Statins are another example.  They do reliably lower cholesterol levels and the statistical evidence there is clear and unequivocal.  But what they don't do is prevent death from all causes; the data is that, with very few patient cohort exceptions (specifically, those persons who have already had a heart attack) they do not reduce your risk of death.  This, incidentally, has been known for a long time and is proof that cholesterol is not the cause of fatal heart attacks and strokes.  But this fact has done nothing to prevent billions of dollars being made on a drug handed out like candy on Halloween.

So be careful here, because we have correlation -- but, thus far, we don't know how "sticky" that is.  If it isn't sticky then it might well not be related to the believed cause, other than tangentially.  That is, it may well be that the fear porn or other related factors went into people not screwing as often or choosing to use birth control rather than not and thus while the statistic is real its not caused by the shot.

If, however, it persists over the next few quarters now that the virus and fear porn associated with it have been attenuated to a large degree then it is reasonable to believe that the damage, given when it started and the nine month lag before births occur, likely is caused by the jabs.

What's worse is that if it is persistent the damage is obviously long-lasting and might be permanent -- catastrophically so for those who took the shots.  One in five, roughly, is nasty beyond anyone's worst imagination. Indeed, over the space of a decade or two it will collapse entire societies and governments by very-effectively destroying enough of the next generation that earnings, tax collections and thus government funding will all be ruined with no hope of redemption or reversal for 20+ years -- a generation.

My "1 in 30" best guess for people who are completely screwed as a result of the existing jabs looks like a lower boundary at this point and is verifying.  The upper boundary of my calculations was nasty enough that it would have been irresponsible to publish it without very strong evidence of plausibility -- and I still don't have that evidence in a form that I can defend.

We'll see -- but in the meantime if you're of child-creating age you might want to think about what you're going to do to the people who did this to you via lack of testing and wildly unethical actions if, in point of fact, you're the one in five.

Oh, and if you think that's bad, two days ago the FDA decided that for any jab related to an existing one no clinical trials -- and thus no evidence of safety or effectiveness -- are required for approval.  The manufacturers are knowingly distributing, with FDA approval, vaccines against extinct strains of a disease and no longer must show any evidence of either safety or effectiveness before it goes into people.

If you ever take one of these again, or allow your children to be given one, you're a five-alarm idiot and deserve exactly what happens to you.

Dr. Mengele had nothing on these assholes.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Read this folks, and let it sink in.

The California Department of Justice’s 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal went live on Monday with publicly-accessible files that include identifying information for those who have concealed carry permits. The leaked information includes the person’s full name, home address, date of birth, and date their permit was issued. The data also shows the type of permit issued, indicating if the permit holder is a member of law enforcement or a judge.

This is why you never consent to any damned "permits" for a constitutionally protected right.

I don't care if this proves to have been malicious or stupid at its core; it makes no damn difference.

Now, having been released that data is in circulation and will never go away.  There is no way to "un-ring the bell", so to speak, so if you're in that database you now have a permanently increased risk of being targeted by some thug who wants to steal your gun or take retribution against you for something you've done -- which particularly applies to judges.

There have long been states that not only don't recognize permits from other states they go further and some members of their "law enforcement" will pull over and harass, including ripping your car apart on the side of the road looking for a weapon you do not have, because your possession of such a permit shows up on your driver license records when your plate is run.  That interconnection is national and I know that it factually exists because someone I know worked on doing it in a specific municipality.  In combination with automated license-plate scanners now present in many jurisdictions that automatically run every plate they "see" this is no longer simply a matter of the cop having it pop on the screen after they pull you over for a traffic violation.  Several people have found out about this the hard way while traveling and I have no desire to become one of them.

But this sort of problem is much more serious because general release of data like this means that risk can never be extinguished; you have been marked indelibly and illegally by the State and there is no recourse possible; money damages do not and cannot compensate.  The damage done by such acts, irrespective of motivation, is both immediate and irreparable.

This is cause for immediate forced repeal by the Supreme Court of all firearms registration and permit requirements along with the immediate and permanent destruction of all such existing records, with criminal penalties for any attempt to reinstate them or cheat and keep them around.


View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2022-06-28 07:50 by Karl Denninger
in Other Voices , 606 references
[Comments enabled]  

Damn those fish.... good thing my BBQ is good and ready, and my fillet knife is sharp! -- Ed


I want to be weaker and slower and surrounded by useless people!”
– No one, ever

Everybody agrees something wicked this way comes. No one is sure what it is, or how bad it will get. The questions take up a lot of mental energy. There's another one floating around the internet and people's brain pans: What can I do?

The last guest Ticker discussed how to psychologically prepare yourself for Impending Bad. This one aims at preparing you physically. 

I'm still not a fan of unsolicited advice. My general philosophy is no one else can make personal  decisions for another adult because the individual bears the consequences.  Choices, responsibilities, and the work towards goals are for the individual, not others. So take the rest of today’s guest Ticker with the whole salt shaker, or go on with your day.

Preparing for the future physically is only two things:  what you can do, and how well you can do it. 

Both take effort and time. There are very few shortcuts around hard work. There is working smarter instead of harder, and then there's being lazy. The former is a good use of time, the latter is for entitled twats.

The first is what you do. Now is a great time to learn a new skill that has a tangible output. It doesn't matter which one. There are entire encyclopedia sets that could be filled with what each of us does not know. Pick one or two things that sound interesting and get passable at them. 

Here’s a semi regularly discussed scenario:  Someone is worried about The End of the World as We Know It and a large part of their survival plan is fleeing to the country with a can of seeds.  Their plan hinges on a farmer believing they and their offering is valuable enough to barter with.  That the farmer has seeds, a garden, cereal crops, livestock, a well, generator, and a mindset that expects to be snowed in for a week every winter never dawns on Mr. Seeds.

What exactly does a single can of seeds bring to the table?  Nothing.  Mr. Seeds is a drain on already tight resources.  Plus he already proved himself a shortsighted fool.

This dude is lazy as fuck.  He expended zero effort yet expects the red carpet treatment.

What if in addition to seeds, he brought gardening, woodworking, sewing, engine repair, plumbing, electrical, masonry, construction, cooking, beekeeping, or any other useful skill to Mr. Farmer?  Taking him in is more likely because he has something to offer.

If you don’t believe TEOTWAWKI is imminent, learning a skill is even more valuable. Since clown world will tick along for a few more years, it has time to pay off.  Perhaps it will help other people or generate side income.  Who couldn’t use more money right now?  A new hobby is a pleasant way to pass dark, cold, winter hours.

The second part is how well you can do, well, everything.

The better shape you are in, the easier life is. How will you make time for your new hobby if living exhaust you? If you think TEOTWAWKI is just around the corner, fitness is critical.  How will you escape a blue hive if you gasp for air walking across a flat parking lot?

Getting in shape doesn’t mean running a 4-minute mile, or having a 24 inch vertical jump.  These can be personal goals, but not necessary for this purpose.

You are “in shape” when any daily activity is almost effortless. Mowing the grass? Easy. Carrying groceries up the stairs? Whatever, they aren’t heavy. Pushing the shopping cart to the corral? A way to enjoy the weather.  Low bar there, yet people who should be able to do all this can’t.

Aim higher than what you reasonably expect to reach.  Why? Because humans are lazy. We want the fastest, simplest, easiest route to our goals. Reaching beyond means you'll get results. Those barbells don't build muscle collecting dust, races won't be finished with your ass glued to the couch, and the damn grass ain't mowing itself this week, either.

If you have physical limitations or health problems, do the best you can. It's all anyone, including you, can ask. 

There's one magic exercise. That's right, I'm claiming unicorns are real.  It's something everyone should do, but as with all advice, take it or leave it.

Aaaaaaaannnnnnd it's weightlifting. Specifically low reps with high weights until you can’t lift anymore. This builds low, medium, and high twitch muscle fibers. Weightlifting will help in all daily activities and every other exercise. More strength and speed is always valuable. 

Outside of building muscle, if you like a certain activity, do it! Life is too short to be constantly miserable. That’s what weightlifting is for, piling on the meh and gains. Any other exercise is a tool to further build your body and mind. It's also good stress relief.  Walking, running, biking, dancing, spinning, swimming, sports, or anything that gets you off the couch will work.  

There you have a roadmap to physically prepare for the future:  get in shape so you can do your new hobby well.  Might save your life, might make you money, or these two new habits might bring you pure, simple joy. The world needs more of that right now.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2022-06-26 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 3053 references
[Comments enabled]  

.... all you have left is violence

Having just secured a landmark decision vindicating our clients’ constitutional Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we were presented with a stark choice—withdraw from representing them or withdraw from the firm. There was only one choice: We couldn’t abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles.

This sort of behavior by law firms should and must lead to their immediate forced dissolution and disbarment of the firm's partners and principals.


Because if it doesn't we will inevitably wind up shooting each other.

Why do drug dealers shoot each other over a corner?  Because they can't sue.

It's not that shooting is preferrable; it's not.  As soon as the guns come out you might get shot, where if you sue and lose you may get hit with a money judgment -- but you don't die.  Once violence is all you have death is part of the equation and since you can only sentence someone to die one time, no matter how many other people they kill, all the rest after the first one are free.

That are very uncomfortable and inconvenient facts -- but they are facts.

Our adversarial process only works when competent representation is available.  When groups of attorneys -- not individuals but firms representing dozens, hundreds or thousands of legal professionals blackball particular positions because they disagree with them socially that destroys the adversarial process and acts as a judiciary without exposition of the evidence or trial.

If you want to know why nobody has brought suit over what appears to be blatantly fraudulent data mishandling with the jabs, this is likely why.  Now we have law firms doing so for Second Amendment cases, which is tantamount to lawyers deciding among themselves that the Second Amendment is void, of no effect and will not be litigated or defended.

An attorney is an officer of the court -- not a mere private businessperson.  This sort of interference with the bringing of legitimate cases, and in this circumstance the case which led to the issue was won, and therefore by the highest court in the land found to be virtuous, is not only outrageous its un-American.

There is only one resolution that does not lead to violence: The firms involved in this sort of thing, in each and every instance, must be ejected from the courts and their partners and participating members disbarred.

If we don't insist on that and make it happen in this case and all similar others legitimate litigants with a valid beef are effectively denied any and all legal options for redress.  If someone cannot find recourse to the law due to deliberate collusive action of this sort then their decision to find recourse via all that remains available to them is both legitimate and expected.

If these people turn into analogs of the gang-banger on the corner when their beef should legitimately be heard in a courtroom, but they are unable to find competent representation to bring said suits, it is the direct responsibility of firms like this, along with we who refuse to demand their dissolution and disbarment, that caused it to occur.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2022-06-25 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 976 references
[Comments enabled]  

We're about to find out if all the bleating about a Constitutional Republic -- and the entire basis for not choosing to simply take whatever you want from whoever might have it, by whatever means you need to use (up to and including killing them) means anything or not.

The Supreme Court has issued two opinions of note that define quite-clearly that there are limits on what the Government can enact, and those limits in our Constitution are binding.

The first, striking down NY's (and several other) laws requiring you must show an extraordinary reason to have available a weapon for self-defense beyond the confines of your own home was blindingly unconstitutional a century ago when the "law" was enacted.  Nonetheless it took a century for the Supremes to tell NY to stick it up their ass.  The ruling goes nowhere near far enough in that rights do not require permission slips to exercise, and only when proved to be misused in an assault against another may they be constrained.  You have a right to free speech but if you blast your speech through a megaphone at someone else's house at 3:00 AM you can be compelled to stop.  The same speech, delivered by the same megaphone, on a busy public sidewalk is perfectly legal and, if you don't like it, that's just tough crap.

The 2nd Amendment is about protecting one's life, liberty and property from those who would take it by violence.  Yes, that means if government goons come to take same by violence in direct contravention to your natural rights you can shoot them.  If you don't think so then you live in a nation that has no right to exist and thus none of your alleged Constitutional protections exist either because America is here for the precise reason that the colonists shot the British when they came to take their property -- specifically, their guns and ammunition.  Whether there is one nutjob with a gun or a hundred of them wearing magic costumes is immaterial; it is the act itself you have the right to defend yourself against irrespective of who's committing it.

The cognitive dissonance within the left and our so-called "ruling class" on this point is ridiculous. Not one politician has a right to obtain or remain in office if they do not uphold this fact, for the entire political structure upon which their office rests is void if, in fact, they do not acknowledge and agree that such a right exists -- and existed before the United States did.  Since said right vests in the people and the government never had it there is no capacity to lawfully interfere with same since to grant or withhold something you must first have rightful possession of it.

That's the beginning and end of it.

The 6-3 Dobbs ruling, which overturned Roe (and which should not be a surprise given it was leaked in a puerile and outrageous attempt to derail same) likewise is not what the left says it is, nor is it what the right says it is.  While Roe certainly did attempt to draw upon an alleged right to privacy and bodily autonomy we just spent the last two years destroying both and not one single government official was hanged, shot, run out of town or set on fire for doing it, so those of you who argue that is the premise on which Roe rested and that you "respect" such can fuck off.  Indeed the same diffuse "public benefit" argument is more applicable to an unborn child in that without children there is no society at all, yet just as with so-called "public health" arguments the benefit to any particular person is diffuse and impossible to prove in advance.  The fact that the so-called left didn't immediately sack every political agency and politician who locked down the country, enforced mask mandates and passed or supported jab requirements proved that they have no principles behind their position at all and never did -- it was and is baseless and indefensible authoritarian crap that drove all of it.  I was once a fairly staunch defender of the original split in Roe, but the last two years have proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that there never was an honest position taken on the other side.

In point of fact those on the left in regard to this issue are no better than the British soldiers who tried to confiscate guns at Concord and thus have no right to any of the Constitution's protections themselves since they have explicitly repudiated said Constitution upon which the entirety of their claim to office and alleged "power", such as it is, rests.

Indeed all the caterwauling about "assigned sex at birth" (coming from these same people, incidentally) is just more bullshit piled upon bullshit.  We know, with absolute certainty and have since microscopes were invented when life begins and when the immutable characteristics of said life become fixed.  That event occurs in every sexually-reproducing organism down to the lowliest sexed plant when the male and female gametes fuse and there is not a thing you can do beyond that instant in time to change it.

Thus what isn't subject to debate by any honest person is when distinct life exists.  What is subject to debate is when and under what circumstances does life acquire Constitutional protection?  You can put down your dog, cat, cow or chicken irrespective of its state of birth or age.  None of that matters and other than by unreasonable cruelty there is no crime involved in killing any of them.  We assign by dint of political process superior and in fact distinct and unique rights to the species of animal called Homo Sapiens.  The species rhesus macaque, on the other hand, despite being both intelligent and a mammal, and thus quite close to Homo Sapiens from a biological perspective, can be killed and medically experimented on through any point in its existence from conception forward without criminal consequence.  Mus musculus can be fed to your pet snake while alive, or you can let your cat play with (and eat) one and all is well.

The premise that one person has the right to kill another distinct Homo Sapiens entity that has not yet been born (the 14th Amendment specifically attaches said protections at birth) yet any other person who does so is charged with murder (if intended) or manslaughter (if through negligence) and prosecuted is a political question.  Indeed our modern society has wildly divergent views on this; in some jurisdictions a woman who is pregnant and smokes meth, resulting in harm to or death of the fetus can be criminally charged while in others she will not be.  That is a political debate, not one of fact, since it is fact that at the moment of conception a distinct Homo Sapiens entity exists and the actual debate thus isn't about life -- it is about when and under what circumstances said life acquires the pre-government rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all three of which are protected and allegedly recognized (but not granted) by the Constitution and, under its present language (14th Amendment again), said attachment occurs at birth.

The entire premise of the 50 States, rather than one country with no division of power is that serious questions of this sort frequently do not have fact-based answers.  They have political answers, and diversity of political opinion and expression means that over time the better proposed answers will show superior outcomes while the lesser ones will show worse outcomes, which we can then analyze and refine political policies around.

Further, because our Constitution prohibits strictures on where you can travel and live within the 50 states those locales will, over time, either gain or lose people and political influence.  Yes, it takes a long time.  Go ask Lori Lightfoot how she likes the departure of multiple major corporations along with their employment and tax base from Chicago across the last few years.  Did that happen overnight?  No, it took decades and plenty of people with money who like the culture and such in said cities first tried to fix it through the political process.  It was only when that process was exhausted and the conclusion was reached that further attempts were pointless that the moves were made.

Such as it is now with Roe.  Those who want easy and immediate access to abortions and consider it a lifestyle issue worth residence can and should move to a state or town that will protect same.  There are several where the political winds hold that abortion, whether early on or all the way up to the moment of birth, is indeed something they wish to consider the sole domain of the woman in question.  If you hold that view then move to one of those places; U-Haul is ready when you are.

If you hold the opposite view -- that being Homo Sapiens confers protection from the moment of distinct life then move somewhere that has or will restrict or even ban abortion.

That is actual choice; those who believe they have a right to impose their views on others by force are not for choice at all.  They're for sticking a gun in your face and demanding you do what they want exactly as they did with Covid.  Witness the threats to burn or even kill from the left over this decision.

In a civilized society an act in furtherance of same is properly called felony assault and it confers upon the person assaulted the right to stop the assailant immediately, including through the use of deadly force.

No, the Supremes have not restored the Constitution as many on the right will claim.

But they did take a couple of the torn pieces of said Constitution that have been used as birdcage liner for decades and taped them back together.

There is much more to be restored and no guarantee our system of government will do so but this is, objectively, progress.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)