The Market Ticker - Canceled
What 'They' Don't Want Published- Category [Editorial]
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.

2021-10-19 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 537 references
[Comments enabled]  

Buttigieg has now proved what has long been suspected: It is trivially-easy to abuse FMLA and other "mandated" leave provisions without consequence, so go ahead and do it -- right here, right now.

**** ALL employers and **** the government.

After all they're willing to **** you, right?  Vax mandates and swabs-up-nose, along with "insurance" surcharges anyone?

Let me explain.

Pregnancy has a nine-month lead time.  Therefore if you and your wife or girlfriend (or the other way around) are having fun and intentionally or otherwise wind up pregnant you cannot predict whether nine months into the future, at the time you do the deed, you will be in some form of serious job stress requiring your attendance.  You don't have a time machine and since pregnancy takes nine months to resolve in said requirement for your undivided attention (maybe seven or eight months for most women, all nine for men) unless you know your job is going to be 100% "all hands on deck" for the next year into the future you simply have no idea whether your personal decision to make a new family member is going to have a severe impact on your employer or not.

This is never true for adoption.

I'm an adopted child so before you say "oh you don't understand" shut the **** up right now since I most-certainly do understand.  Up to the point of adoption there was no burden.  Oh yes, you might spend all manner of money and be on some waiting list.  But the fact remains that the obligation does not have a nine-month lead; it happens now when you actually sign the papers and become, in the immediate timeframe, said parent and never otherwise.

Pete decided to do this in the middle of a supply chain dislocation that he knew, when he took the job, was going to occur because it started before Biden took office and had no sign of abating at any time since.

He decided to add a child to his family on his chosen schedule despite this fact and knowledge of the burden his job presented and then intentionally absconded from his duties to his position abusing the provisions of a law that allowed him to do exactly that and screw you.

FMLA was put in place to address what many people considered unknowable circumstances that could occur, and which society deemed (by passing said law) appropriate to shift to the employer despite the possible serious harm done to said employer by doing so.

No protection to prevent abuse by deliberately causing said disruption in your life and laying it off on your employer on purpose was written into the law.  In this case Pete decided to do exactly that and screw 330 million employers -- the people who are responsible for covering the taxes from which his salary is paid and who have every right to expect his job to be fulfilled.

Oh by the way, despite Pete's protest otherwise he is not eligible because you must have been employed for 12 months in that position and worked 1,250 hours during those 12 months.  No, the recent FEPLA law doesn't make him eligible since you must meet FMLA requirements to use it.  He could have not met either requirement as Biden has not been in office for 12 months.  In short he screwed the people because he can.

Now maybe it is proper and maybe it is not to protect people against the unforeseeable bad luck or bad timing that may be encountered in one's family.  That's a separate debate but its one that we had and which resolved, in the present tense, in the availability of paternity leave tied only to mental and psychological factors, not physical recovery from actual childbirth which, of course, no man can ever undergo despite the protests of so-called "gender fluid" liars.  No uterus, no birth.  Period.  Argue with God or Darwin over that as you see fit.

But that's not what occurred here.

What occurred here was a deliberate decision to undertake a life choice with immediate effect in the middle of a crisis and lay the cost of off on others, specifically the entire ****ing country to whom he promised faithful and full-throated service in his job.

Well, since Pete has not only done this he in addition did not qualify to take leave, paid or not, under FMLA and FEPLA but has gotten blessed for it instead of being immediately fired by Biden for abusing the law Pete has personally opened the door for everyone else to exploit this to the maximum possible extent.

Every single one of you should go **** their employer via the exact same mechanism -- a personally and intentionally manufactured "crisis" that requires you take family leave until and unless all the ****ing aimed at you via so-called "mandates" ceases, irrespective of the justification used to abuse you such as impending OSHA or "contracting" requirements.

When those who abuse you declare and demonstrate how to shove a white-hot poker up their ass entirely within the law then you damned well ought to take their example and make them taste it, bottoms-up.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-10-18 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 1026 references
[Comments enabled]  

Chicago is a wildly-blue city.  If you doubt that you're nuts.  I lived in the area for 13 years and there were ZERO "R" wins on a precinct basis in any of the places where I was.  Ever.  Those are facts and its only gotten more-profound over time.

So as a result the Chicago cops should be nearly 100% on board with the jab mandate, right?

They're not.  In fact, half of the rank and file has either said "No" or none of your damned business.

Up to half of Chicago's rank-and-file police officers could be placed on unpaid leave because of a dispute between their union and Mayor Lori Lightfoot over a city requirement for officers to disclose their vaccine status.

Uh huh.

Eric Carter, first deputy superintendent of police, asked officers to fulfill "their mission and duty as professional police officers. It is also our expectation that all officers will comply with the City's Covid-19 mandate."

"Members of this department who refuse to comply with the requirements may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including separation," Carter said.

But I thought all the blue hive folks were on board with this?  Suddenly half are not?

Who's been lying here?  Is Delta lying?  Is Southwest?  Is Biden?

The answer is simple: Yes, they're lying.

Are the counties and states lying?  Probably.

Do you need 80, 90% or more of the people to get jabbed -- and if you do, does that stop the infection?  No.

Tennessee is about 50% excluding kids who can't.  The 7-day moving average of "cases" was just over 9,000 on September 11th.  There has been little change in vaccination percentage since; indeed a couple of weeks ago their "dashboard" added a second decimal percentage so as to be able to show "change" that would otherwise be absent.  The most-recent 7-day moving average rate is now 1,600 "cases", a nearly 85% reduction from the peak yet basically nobody is getting jabbed in the state at this point.

How is this possible if the only means to reduce Covid-19 worth doing, and the only thing that works, is getting jabbed?  We sure as Hell are not wearing masks, distancing from others or staying home!

It can't be possible according to all the fraud peddlers from Fauci to Vander**** and those who can't figure out if they're male or female, yet it happened.  That is not subject to dispute and only about 50% of the population who can get the jab, which excludes about 20% of the people, are "fully vaccinated."  Therefore the true rate across the population as a whole of this state is around 40%.

In other words the claim that we "need" to vaccinate people -- and that doing so stops Covid-19 -- is a lie.  It is a proved lie; that which you did not accomplish and yet the desirable outcome happened anyway can't be why it happened since you never accomplished what you said you had to do.

Is the truth that likely around half the population has not been jabbed and won't be, despite the claims otherwise?


Florida and New York both have statistically identical vaccination rates.  Florida's "case" rate is down 90% from end of August with a near-zero death rate (12/day at last check) while New York's case rate has not collapsed and their death rate is holding at three times that of Florida yet both have reasonably-comparable populations and, in fact, Florida has a more-elderly (and thus presumed morbid) population.

Near-identical jab rates yet wildly-different results are extremely solid evidence that being jabbed does nothing to change outcomes, never mind that in May JAMA documented that, if the jabs were effective there were insufficient remaining people without antibody protection to maintain anything other than nuisance-level Covid-19 infections.

Of course the summer surge did happen and since re-infection has never been documented in any statistically-meaningful number of people this means the jabs do not work to slow or stop infection or transmission at all.

In short the entire "public health" argument in Biden's E/O and "economy promoting" claim is bull****.

It was proved bull**** before it was issued and worse, it is clear that politicians all over the "blue" areas are and have been lying about vaccine uptake.  It is nearly-certain that corporate actors who have made these claims are lying as well.  Since there is no longer any sanction for lies, including as we have now repeatedly seen lies under oath before Congress, why not lie if it suits a political purpose?

And, of course... it does.

Never mind Colin Powell, who was fully-vaccinated and just died from Covid-19.  Remember, the latest and most-current lie is that you absolutely will not die of this virus if you get jabbed.  Well, he was jabbed, and yet Covid killed him anyway.  Once again they all lied and Powell had access to the best medicine has to offer at Walter Reed, a privilege you do not share.  All of it was worthless.

But political purposes do not stock grocery store shelves, do they?  Nor do they deliver "Christmas Toys"..... or essential components of machinery in power plants, water and sewer systems and those required for energy production so you can have heat this upcoming winter.


The mandates are neither effective or lawful, no matter what Pant****terInChief and entire the panoply of lying douchebags claim.  The data is incontrovertible; you simply cannot claim that 99% (or, as Treasury has now claimed, 100%!) coverage is essential to stop a disease when the collapse in case and death rates has already occurred at less than 50% coverage.

Step up Governor Lee and others, along with State Legislatures -- ban the mandates and insert into State Law that no entity may hold a Regulated Entity Business Permit or License if they discriminate in any form or fashion on health status nor are they entitled to such knowledge in the first place, including but not limited to health policy surcharges, acceptance or refusal of any vaccination including that for Covid-19.  If entities do not immediately drop their mandates revoke their business licenses.  Such a license is a state-issued privilege, not a right.

Don't do it and you risk economic dislocation or even social order collapse when your police force, firefighters or medical workers walk out.  Go ahead and be stupid, America: If and when the cities burn and your heart attack is fatal as there are no EMS workers or nurses to treat you you deserve that outcome as you caused it with your demands, which you have zero ability to enforce as exactly nobody is a slave and as a result you cannot compel anyone to perform the labor you desire.

Vaccination is a personal health decision and should always be made only on the basis of personal risk and reward.  For some individuals the risk is near-absolute (e.g. those allergic to ingredients) or the reward zero (those previously infected and thus presumptively immune or those who are immune-compromised and thus will not be reactive to the jab.)  The decision by governments to grant immunity to manufacturers and those administering said medical interventions is a legitimate element of each individual's personal assessment of risk and reward; if entities wish to promote vaccination and assert that it is "safe" the best way to do so is to accept all liability that accrues if it turns out they're lying.  Revocation of said immunity, therefore, is the best and most-effective means to promote vaccine acceptance.  That it has not been done makes clear that the only remaining logical response to any such "mandate" is to hold said politicians and health care providers personally responsible on an "eye for an eye" basis for each and every adverse event.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-10-17 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 825 references
[Comments enabled]  

First things first: Why is this post in the /nad area?

Because Google claimed my article on Garland, in which I went after him specifically as an official of the government was deemed "harmful or derogatory" and thus they disabled ads against it and demanded I remove it from the "ad served" side.

Think about that folks: For nearly fifteen years I have gone after politicians on both sides of the aisle when they have done stupid, odious or even illegal things.  I have called out Obama, Trump, more people in both administrations than I can count, Bernanke, Yellen and more.  I won a Reed Irvine award for my reporting in 2009.  Yes, with all the "nice" words I use on a regular basis.  Those of you who complain about that from time to time can go rightly **** off.

But -- this is now no longer permitted.  It is most-certainly not permitted to point out rank corruption in the form of Garland's family ties to a company profiting from peddling "critical race theory" bull**** in publicly-funded schools.

So... over here in /nad this goes.

May I point out that if "advertising" is only permitted if you attack Republicans now or in the future then you will have exactly one means of obtaining said information: That which doesn't have to be paid for, so that would be people like myself and your alternatives are to deal with that or destroy every media outlet, all of big tech and all their advertisers without fear or favor and by any means possible, whether fair, foul, legal or not.

These people do not fear such an outcome because they count you as too stupid to actually do it.  They know damn well they're outnumbered 100:1 or more and that's if every cop, National Guard member and member of the military agrees with them -- which of course is flat-out bull****.  Plenty do not agree and will either sit on their hands or join the other side.

I don't care what technology you have; at 100:1 numerical inferiority by any means other than nuking cities you lose.  Period.  You lose enough men and material that you sue for peace.  Therefore, this continues for one and only reason: They have no reason to fear those who go BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

So the topic at hand: Your impending hunger, lack of electricity, running water and other similar things.

Note that link: There are a million containers waiting offshore right now.

"Many are likely Christmas presents"?  Awwww... so... after Christmas they're what -- 95% off?  I like that a lot.

What about those that aren't Christmas presents?  You know, pharmaceuticals and precursor chemicals to make them?  The replacement bearings for your power generating plant 20 miles away, without which your lights (never mind heat) don't work?  The replacement parts for your lawn mower -- or your lawn service's mower.  The hydraulic cylinder or hose that needs replacement on the snow plow that will soon be necessary?

Yeah, all that stuff.

Biden has "obtained" commitments to "increase capacity" by 5,000 containers a week.  Can you do basic math?  With a million containers offshore now, each of which is incurring demurrage (charge for time) plus the crew and fuel to hold station offshore and the depreciation on the vessel, none of which is free, what do you think is going to happen?

Why that additional capacity will only take four years to empty all those ships and that assumes no new ones show up with more containers.  Which they will, of course.  And which does you exactly zero good because until the container is unloaded from the ship and transported and broken down to wherever the contents need to go its value in the economic picture to the end user is zero.  Never mind that there isn't an infinite supply of containers either so the "empties" (or now-full with goods going the other way) those containers have to get back to the other end so they can be filled once more.

Why did this happen?

It happened because you allowed, for the last 20 years, a "supply chain" to run through a Communist, forced-labor nation.  You allowed the firms that sell products here to do that without destroying them and forcing them to cut it out -- indeed, you cheered it on as their stock price went up.  You allowed the imposition of mandates for a viral pandemic that, on the evidence, was going to burn itself out within a year or so if you did nothing and by imposing those mandates you stretched out the damage over more time: "Flattening the curve" does not change the total area under the curve, it only increases the time during which such damage is taken.  Now you're screaming for even more mandates which, on the data, are promoting more viral spread and escape from jab antibodies which is extending the time even more!

Even worse are people whining about not fitting in their pants because they sat at home and got even fatter.  This, despite the fact that within a couple of months we knew conclusively that being fat made you much more likely to die when, not if, you got Covid.  Rather than tell people to cut that **** out and lose the weight or end up in a box with everyone else laughing at your stupid actions we continue to pander to the bull**** of "healthy at any size" which, on the evidence when it comes to Covid, only is true if you consider someone now in an Urn on your mantle to be "healthy."

At the same time we're permitting entities to change the terms of contracts unilaterally.  For those who say "but the courts are going along with it and they're the last word" I wish to point out something you will not want to hear but which is nonetheless true:

The Rule of Law exists for one reason: A man's word being his bond was insufficient, and rather than have such "unilateral" changes result in the aggrieved party burning down the offender's home or slicing pieces off his children and eating them in front of him as retribution for said wrongs we designed a social construct called a contract with a means of enforcement.  All contracts inherently come down to consenting parties -- key word here is "consent" -- agreeing to do something for one another.  The instant you abrogate that you wind up in one of two places: You are forced to perform, in full, before the other person lifts a finger because they no longer believe you and cannot seek legal enforcement or worse, they go back to burning your house and eating your children when you screw them.

One leads to your death when you have no food or heating fuel in the winter and the second leads to your death by more-direct means.  Neither outcome is tenable in a society where interdependence of people is near-universal.  I do not care how "elite" someone thinks they are -- they are, in fact not.  There is not a single one of those private aircraft that runs without fuel, there is not a single mansion that sustains life without energy and food, and without physical security provided by others any such opulence gets overrun instantly by a bunch of hungry people in the now-dark and food-less cities -- and is burnt to the ground by someone who happens to have a fifty cent cigarette lighter.

To those CEOs and others who think ****ting on your employees with threats, mandates and surcharges on their "health subscriptions" because they will not take your magic jab are all acceptable: You're wrong and if your board does not force you to cut that crap out now you will find out the hard way as will all of your board members and other so-called "pillars" of the community.

Perhaps the title of this article is in fact wrong.

Perhaps it's "our vapid SOCIETY" -- you know, the same "society" that makes excuses for a teen who shoots up a school because he's black and releases him on bond (!!!) while arresting a father who goes after the school board in a public meeting because they covered up a tranny who allegedly raped his daughter after the school allowed said BOY to use the GIRL'S restroom!

If you wind up starving, freezing to death with no lights and running water this winter and a 200% higher heating bill you can't pay you deserve it for allowing this crap to go on.  This didn't happen in a weekend and no, Trump did exactly zero to stop any of it.  Indeed, it was Trump who created the problem originally through his HHS Secretary and he did nothing to stop it before leaving office.

I will raise a toast to every stroke and heart attack caused by these jabs, along with every single person who is screwed to within an inch of their life or into box as a direct consequence of societal inaction and even cheering on bull**** like mandating boys be permitted to go into the girl's restroom in schools.  Further, to all the woke firms who listen to the threats out of the Biden Administration instead of telling them to go **** goats:  I will chortle with glee when your firm or you personally pay for your stupidity, and you surely shall.  The destruction of sanctity of contract is the foundation of polite society and you, bitches and bastards, do not deserve anything even remotely-considered to be polite.

WE are responsible for this episode of Lord of the Flies because it is a fact that "they" are outnumbered by more than 100:1 and if any material percentage of our population grew back their sack and told them they SHALL cut it out now, and made clear that if they didn't the OR ELSE was not going to be polite in any way it would have stopped years ago and still could stop right here, right now, tomorrow.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-10-15 14:13 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 804 references
[Comments enabled]  

Here's reality folks:

Labor is a contract, just like anything else, and follows the same laws.

It works like this, whether you're buying gasoline, a deck for your home, a can of beans or an hour of labor:

  • Offer.  One side offers to do something; provide a gallon of gas, a can of beans, an hour of labor, or some other act.  There is a negotiation, no matter how one-sided (e.g. posting a price on a shelf) or not (two parties across a table hashing things out.)  That which is material all must be agreed; anything that one side or the other wants to insist upon has to be part of this.

  • Acceptance.  For any agreement with a term over one year The Statute of Frauds generally applies, which means the agreement must be reduced to writing.  For something of less than one year, in most cases (but not all; there are exceptions with the best-known being the sale of real estate) the agreement can be verbal and is still binding.  Both parties must agree to the same terms; that is, what is offered and what is accepted must in all material respects be the same thing or there is no contract.  In most cases one party provides money, but not all; it is perfectly legitimate to contract for a case of beer in exchange for mowing your lawn, as an example.  This is called "a meeting of the minds."  If all parties involved did not agree to the same thing then there is no contract.  That which was not contemplated at the time cannot be unilaterally inserted by either side later on.

  • Consideration.  What each party offers must be of some value.  The amount of said value doesn't matter (e.g. you can contract to sell a house for one dollar), and indeed in many cases the amount of money involved is nominal -- but something of value must be put on the table by both parties.  (There are other rules that may apply for "promises" but this is not at issue here.)  At least one party must actually act in providing said consideration although they don't have to complete doing so.

  • Mutual Obligation.  Both parties must agree to something that is a burden.  The burden does not have to be large but it must exist.  You can't, for example, meet that obligation by breathing -- at least not on Earth and above ground level where oxygen is freely available.  You might be able to on a Space Station where oxygen is very scarce, however.

  • Competence, Capacity and Legality.  A person who is legally incompetent cannot contract. Nor can you contract to do an impossible thing (e.g. jump over the Empire State Building using nothing but your muscles.)  You also cannot contract to do an illegal thing; if you attempt that its unenforceable.

The problem is that once you have a contract neither side can change it unilaterally.  The City cannot compel you to disclose new health information that was not part of the agreement to provide labor to the City, no matter who claims to have the authority to enforce that.  It does not matter if the City Government, State Government or Federal Government issues such an edict.  Said entities can require that as a condition of all new agreements but they cannot retroactively change the agreements that exist.

Where employment at-will is involved then each successive day or hour of employment is at will.  Therefore the employer can, provided it is not illegal due to some other law, issue any mandate effective whenever they'd like.  They can issue a mandate that no employee may have hair over 3" long, for example.  But they cannot compel compliance; they can fire you, but that's it, and such a firing is not for cause since they attempted to renegotiate terms of your employment and you refused.  It is exactly the same as attempting to decrease your salary.  Yes, they can do that, but you can refuse and if you do that's a firing but it is not for cause.

When there is a labor contract for some period of time (e.g. a year, some number of hours for a contract employee, etc.) which replaces the "employment at-will" doctrine by mutual consent (which an entity can agree to do) the City, State or Federal Government cannot impose a change in terms until the existing agreement expires and/or is renegotiated.  If they attempt to do so that's void and if they lock people out of their job prior to that successful renegotiation they have committed an unlawful act; said person is entitled to be paid for every hour they would have worked but for the employer's refusal to let them perform their job.

This isn't complicated folks: You in fact have all the power.  You have the power to refuse such mandates.  If you're fired despite what some states are claiming that is termination without cause; they have attempted to renegotiate your "employment at will", have failed, and fired you.

America banned slavery and involuntary servitude following the Civil War except upon conviction for a criminal act.




The goons do not like this, but these are facts.  Either the courts uphold the basics of Contract Law or there is no reason for you or anyone else to  uphold any other law, including those forbidding you from doing all manner of things and defending yourself against any attempt to stop you.

Either the rule of law exists for all or it does not exist AT ALL.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-10-12 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 882 references
[Comments enabled]  

It is often said that if you're in debt -- you have a mortgage, a car payment, credit card balances, etc. -- you're obligated to go to work and do your thing and thus can be coerced into taking The Jab because the alternative is that you live on the street.

They're wrong.

Virtually everyone has leisure and entertainment funds.  I have two tickets to a Covid-rescheduled concert in November.  It's in Illinois. I have a hotel reservation.  The State put back in place an indoor tard-rag requirement. If they don't drop it before the cancel deadline for the hotel I'm not going.  I will deprive the State of Illinois, the City of St. Charles and The Arcada Theatre my business.  If The Arcada does not drop their requirement in enough time for me to decide and refuses to refund my money in full then I will never set foot in their business again.  They changed the terms after the tickets were sold and in any sane world that makes the contract void; I don't give a crap what their excuse is.  My contract is with Ron and The Arcada, not the corpulent ******* that infests Springfield.  They might be able to rook me out of the money I spent on the tickets (that amount of money is not worth suing him over) but I used to show up there at least once, sometimes twice or more a year and sprinkle money all over the local economy; between hotel, food, booze, screwing around and of course the tickets such a trip usually resulted in somewhere around $1,000 - $2,000 being left in the local community.  THAT NOW GOES TO ZERO; IF RON ONESTI THINKS I WILL PLAY SHEEP TO SPEND MONEY WITH HIM HE'S GOT A HEAD FULL OF ROCKS AND IF HE KEEPS MY TICKET MONEY IT WILL BE THE LAST OF IT HE, OR ANY FIRM HE'S INVOLVED WITH, ALONG WITH THE ENTIRE LOCAL ECONOMY THERE, EVER SEES.

Likewise every winter prior to Covid I went out to Wolf Creek in Colorado to ski after a friend of mine told me about the place.  I especially like the little espresso shack at the top; the staff are friendly and the coffee very drinkable, never mind containing both caffeine and warmth.  Then Covid came.  Last year I refused to go because I will not wear a mask all over the place, including outdoors.  This year they've said "indoors only" and subject to change "upon the whim of whoever they decide to listen to" but again, I will not comply.  Between hotel, lift tickets, food, local craft beer and other visits to establishments, which sometimes results in my spending a few extra hundred bucks because I decide (for example) I would like new ski boots that too is a couple thousand dollars worth of money sprinkled around that local economy.  THAT NOW GOES TO ZERO AND THE ENITRE LOCAL AREA CAN BLOW ME.  I will find a place to ski that does not require same and sprinkle the money there instead.

Every year my daughter and I traveled to Northern Michigan around the Mackinaw City area -- and visited the island.  We always dropped a nice chunk of money there, sprinkling it around on various things.  The Keyhole bar and grill was one of my favorite places, in fact.  It has been an annual tradition dating back to when she was a child.  Guess what?  Last two years, nope -- I will not wear a ****ing tardrag.  If you want my money you will cut that **** out.  Until you do **** off and may you all go bankrupt.

I am a Platinum Royal Caribbean "Crown and Anchor" member.  That means I have a ****-ton of cruises I (and my daughter) have taken.  They now have a vaccine mandate**** that company and every single employee up the ass with a rusty chainsaw; I have had Covid-19, I'm recovered, I have antibodies and I will not take the ****ing shot to spend thousands of dollars on those or any other cruise ship.  Ever.

There are many other examples.  There are local establishments in the area here that permanently lost my business over this sort of bull****.  I have an extremely long memory and, when it comes business, can be very spiteful.  My usual rule is three strikes and you're out but when it comes to Covid-related bull**** the first offense where I am accosted or denied entry is a pop fly to the infield; you're done.

You and your family almost-certainly sprinkle money around in the same way.  But do not forget, folks, that it works the other way too when it comes to employment and in fact your leverage is even larger there than it is with discretionary spending.  In fact you are ten times or more as effective as The Money God, in all probability, through your employment.

You see, every employee must contribute (on an average basis, of course) more to the firm than they cost.  That is, profit is revenue minus expenses and therefore what you cause to come in as revenue, directly or indirectly, must always be greater than what you cost or the firm eventually goes under.  This is true for every single private enterprise everywhere, always.  Oh sure, there are people who are "dead weight" and in fact contribute nothing (or even have negative value!) but if you're not one of those then your contributed value is even higher than you'd otherwise think because you have to make up for the dead wood!

If you refuse then you may think that hurts you more than them, but you're wrong.  It always hurts them more unless you should have been fired months or years ago as being worthless to the function of the enterprise.  Assuming you're not worthless guess what: Your refusal and them firing you hurts them more than you!  It has to because the common law of business balance prohibits getting something for nothing.

If you organize with others and all tell them to **** off then the multiplication factor gets to be bankruptcy-inducing very quickly because in most firms 10 or 20% of the people -- the smartest ones -- produce half or more of the revenue.  Sometimes much more.  If any material percentage of those people say "screw off!" -- even as few as 5 or 10% -- the company will be mortally wounded.

If you're not levered up to your nuts then its even better because in that case you are perfectly happy to see an economic dislocation and in fact if your employer blows up you might be able to profit from their demiseYou'd think that's nuts, but you'd be wrong.  In the 1990s I took advantage of a minor dislocation in the office market in downtown Chicago and got 8,300 sq/ft of office space (1/3rd of the 26th floor, more or less, in 2 Prudential) for $8/foot.  That was an utterly insane discount to what Class A space was going for at the time.  I could do it because I could write a check for $50 large and drop it on the table at the leasing office in the building as an advance payment to demonstrate that I wasn't full of crap and would be able to meet the lease's financial obligations.

In a serious economic dislocation the deals are even better than that and it is not uncommon to get things for a nickel or even a penny on the dollar.  But you have to have cash as during such an event as nobody is going to loan you anything.  The old saying "money talks, bull**** walks" is never more-true than during an economic dislocation, whether its local to one company, regional to where you live or national in scope.

No, you won't get rich quick doing that but the odds of you going bankrupt doing that are nearly zero.  Contrast this with the other alternative; you take on leverage and, if you're right you make a hell of a lot of money; maybe more or even wildly more than if you do it my way.  ButIf something goes wrong your "empire" is a smoking hole in the ground and someone like me comes in and gets the assets for a nickel on the dollar.

People think you can't do this if you're the ordinary Joe.  Of course you can; it may be at smaller scale but at a return of 20:1 or even more do you care?  No.  Turning $10 large into $200,000 isn't exactly dog****, is it?  Further, when it comes to discretionary spending you are always The Money God and unless you're worthless to your employer it's doubly true there as well.

You are, in fact, The Money God.


From experience: Watching fools and screaming, whining jackasses go bankrupt is very enjoyable and can be the most profitable thing you do in your life at the idiot's expense provided you're prepared to jump on the opportunity.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)