The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-08-23 15:22 by Karl Denninger
in Flash , 146 references
[Comments enabled]  

Sweet Jesus woman, I know you hate Trump, but you blew it, ok?

Now it's reported that she underwent three weeks of radiation treatment for a tumor on her pancreas?

Obviously December wasn't it, eh?

Remember, we've repeatedly been told that she was "cancer-free."  Uh, no.

All lies.

Good luck hanging on long enough to prevent Trump from getting another court pick.

Oh, and as for the Supremes not being political?  Suuuureeee....

If you can politicize the court on a repeated, hideous basis, including blaming Hillary's loss in 2016 on "sexism"  I can knock back a nice adult beverage in commemoration of your permanent assumption of room temperature.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-08-23 13:00 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 17 references


View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-08-23 10:04 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 212 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is rather amusing -- and alarming.

Today the market as a whole takes a header on tariff news.

However, if you look internally you'll find some interesting statistical outliers.  There's always some "story" on why, whether it be some firm's earnings report or perceived "immunity" or "benefit" from an event.

We heard the same thing in 2007.  Who remembers Counrywide Financial?  It was going to play "Brain" and take over the world as all those other subprime lenders went bankrupt.

How'd that work out for 'ya?

History rarely repeats in the market but it nearly always rhymes.

The same pattern is playing out today.  Right here, right now.

And while we're at it we have a President cheering on The Fed to embark on more enabling of fraud -- especially and most-importantly the fraud coming from DC which is currently running a roughly 25% fiscal deficit.

That's right -- about a trillion worth of deficit and $4 trillion in spending means fully one quarter of all federal spending is unfunded.  This, and only this, is why Trump is screaming at The Fed.  He knows that the charade must go on despite the facts, specifically that to be prosperous you must square what you want to do with what you earn.  In government terms this means that the natural friction between what programs are desired and what taxes you can collect must govern what can and does get done.

Nope.  Not at all today.

On either side of the aisle.

Indeed, the left side of the aisle wants even larger fiscal deficits.  Right now.  To fund their "green fantasies", among other things of course, all of which are wholesome, Bambi-style good while everyone else is Satanic-level evil.  Those people not only deny exponents -- the laws of mathematics -- they deny thermodynamics -- the laws of physics -- as well.

The storm is coming folks.  The "authorrrrrriiiittttiiieeeesssss", all of whom are smarter than you (so they say), will do everything possible to maintain that 25% -- and growing -- fiscal deficit.  The theft must continue, particularly when it comes to screwing you on medical care.  The premise of "infinite growth" must continue, even though it can't.  You must believe in the mathematically impossible.

You must.

Because if you don't the DOW trades at 2,000, the S&P at 200, and most of what's in the Nasdaq has no value at all.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-08-23 09:10 by Karl Denninger
in Musings , 57 references
[Comments enabled]  

Oh boy.

So I'm clearing things out that I have but will likely never use again.

One of them, in my garage, was a set of old double dive tanks.  Not the usual sort that I would use for technical diving; these were double 40s, an older configuration that some people used with a single outlet manifold.  They're 6351 alloy and virtually nobody will fill them anymore.  I was given them by a guy who I used to dive with 10 years ago a lot; he stopped due to health reasons and a few years later passed away.

Anyway, there they were.  So I went to pitch 'em and realized they had gas in them.  Ok, must drain gas (an explosion in the garbage truck would really******the garbage guys off), then remove valve manifold so anyone who sees them knows they're safe as they're just a hunk of aluminum with a hole in it

There was a lot of oil in them.

Not like an inch or two in the bottom, but plenty.  Compressor oil, and lots of it.  Oxidized too, so I bet the total hydrocarbon level in the gas was off-the-charts.  I know where this guy used to get them filled; the place has since turned over and the original owner is no longer in business.  But..... he didn't own his own compressor, so it's a virtual certainty that the bad fill(s) came from that one place.

I don't know if that contributed to killing him, but it might have.  To be fair he was older and overweight, so who knows.  And yeah, these have sat in my garage for quite some time.  I intended to make wind chimes out of them (about all you can do with 6351 tanks these days) but never got around to it, and frankly, probably never will so into the trash they go.

Folks, commercial fill operations are supposed to have air quality checks done regularly by a certified lab.  Well, if this one did... I ain't buying it.  If I'd tried to dive that fill I might have been killed by it; certainly, at depth, that sort of hydrocarbon load is going to be narcotic as hell and giving your regulator to a fish is a good way to die.  That's assuming you don't black out.

I was never tempted to use those tanks as they were an oddball configuration.  Thank God.

Rest in peace dude..... I don't know if this contributed to whatever got you in the end, but if it did may the responsible parties burn in Hell for it.

Just sayin'

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-08-23 07:25 by Karl Denninger
in Technology , 74 references
[Comments enabled]  

I'm stunned, I tell you....

Unfortunately, the Fourth Estate has recently allowed misinformation about Section 230 to spread, which is especially regrettable given that falsehoods about Section 230 are already ubiquitous.

The most recent example of such misinformation is an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by the conservative commentator and Prager University founder Dennis Prager. The first falsehood appears in the subhed: “Big tech companies enjoy legal immunity premised on the assumption they’ll respect free speech.”

This is not true. Congress did not pass Section 230 on the understanding that Internet companies would engage in minimal moderation and “respect free speech.”

CATO is correct.

I was an Internet CEO in 1996 -- I ran MCSNet of Chicago, one of the first firms in the area (second by a day, factually) to sell Internet access to consumers.  We also had a lively business connection aspect, as well as one of the first virtual web-hosting offerings.

In other words I was one of the people who really made what you have and do today happen.

I was also, as a consequence, in the middle of the debate on the Communications Decency Act -- and Section 230.

Prior to that ISPs had only case law to shield them.  It was pretty good law, in the general sense; the seminal case was called Cubby .v. CompuServe, which turned on exactly this issue -- whether CompuServe could be held liable because it failed to restrict speech.

The holding at the time was that retroactive moderation, or the failure thereof, did not give rise to derivative liability.  Left open was the question about prospective moderation -- that is what is commonly known as editorial review.  This is the process that an editor in a newspaper uses, for example: Only that which is actively approved passes.  This was left open to a circumstance-by-circumstance evaluation.

Cubby shielded providers who either did or did not retroactively moderate.  In other words if you had an open forum and either decided to or decided not to, after someone posted, take something down other than on the clear presentation of evidence of wrongdoing such as a copyright claim, you were immune from liability.  If you were presented such a claim at the point of actual knowledge there was risk of liability -- but not before.

This is distinct from the speaker being liable.  That is, the person who actually posted the material was (and remains today) responsible for it.

Section 230 changed all that.  Under Section 230 the operator of the system is not responsible -- period.

It does not matter if they censor.

It does not matter when they censor (before or after the fact.)

It does not matter irrespective of what the material is, including that which normally has the highest First Amendment protections (e.g. political speech.)

The only remaining exceptions that have been broadly found under Section 230 is if you edit (that is, change, not remove or refuse to remove) someone else's speech -- that makes it your speech, not the users -- or if the material is illegal and complicity can be shown in that regard (e.g. hosting child porn where you either know or have reason to know it's there.)

It also leaves in place Copyright suits.  However, the DMCA dealt with that separately provided the operator of the site again (1) is not the original poster and (2) conforms with specific requirements of the DMCA, including taking down claimed violations on a commercially-reasonable basis.

Note that under the law there is no differentiation between a "platform" and not.  It's similar to journalism in that journalism is an activity, not a person.  Anyone engaged in journalism, whether for profit or not, whether their usual means of making a living or not is a journalist at that particular point in time.

I had at the time of Section 230's debate and passage serious concerns over the law as written.  But the current range of censorship and such on the Internet today isn't so much about Section 230 or not, it is about the collusive nature of said censorship and concentration of market power.

It's not the banhammer -- it's that the providers collude to collectively deny basic infrastructure purchases by those they dislike, effectively forbidding them from going somewhere else.  This is exactly what happened with 8Chan recently and many others over the last few years.

That's illegal under 15 USC Chapter 1 and worse for those who engage in this sort of collusive behavior that's not a civil matter either, it's a criminal felony carrying 10 years in the slam-slam per incident and it is applicable to everyone involved from CEOs on down.

But heh -- today nobody goes to jail for violating anti-trust law.  Not in the medical field, not in the pharmaceutical field and certainly not in the social media field.

Every one of these people should go to prison -- right now.  But this is not a failure of enforcement of Section 230; rather, it is a failure to enforce 15 USC Chapter 1 as written, with so-called "interpretations" that have unlawfully given a pass to break felony criminal laws on the books for more than 100 years not only in the technology field but in the medical and pharmaceutical fields as well.

There are relatively-simple remedies for this, along with prison sentences for the current violators of which there are many apparent ones, all of whom ought to be facing indictments right here and now.  We need no new law; the existing 100+ year old anti-trust law is plenty sufficient to send many of these firms CEOs and other executives to prison for a decade and ruin their firms with billions -- or even tens of billions in fines since violations are good for $100m each.

Among more-permanent structural remedies are classifying "unbranded" utility-style services as those forbidden to discriminate for or against like kind and quantity buyers.  These would be DNS providers, cloud hosting services, anyone offering colocation services irrespective of their specific type of primary business, CDNs (including those that work to prevent DDOS attacks from working such as Cloudflare, etc.), circuit providers (e.g. telcos, fiber companies, etc), payment processors and aggregating firms irrespective of whether they're in the "fintech" or "traditional" money handling businesses and meet-point operators.

PS: Want someone on air to talk about this was actually there at the time as CEO and won't BS you?  You know how to find me..... 

View this entry with comments (opens new window)