The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
2015-08-28 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 44 references
 

When you're right -- you're right.

Donald Trump says the fatal shooting of two journalists on live televisionshould not be seen as another example of America’s problem with gun violence.

“This isn’t a gun problem — this is a mental problem,” Trump said on CNN’s “New Day” on Thursday, a day after WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and her cameraman, Adam Ward, were killed in Virginia by a gunman who was fired from the station in 2013. “It’s not a question of the laws. It’s really the people.”

We used to have real no-BS mental institutions where people like this could get actual help.  Yes, some of what happened in those institutions was outrageous -- but not all of it, and some of the people who were institutionalized really did need to be.

We decided, as a society, that we were a "kinder, gentler place."  Unfortunately those who are insane didn't share that change in worldview -- they were and are still nuts.

Further:

Nonetheless, Trump suggested, Flanagan’s victims might have been able to save themselves had they been armed.

“I’m very much into the Second Amendment,” Trump said. “You need protection.”

“You’re not going to get rid of all guns,” he added. “If you tried to do it, the bad guys would have them … and the good folks who abide by the law would be hopeless.”

EXACTLY.

And that's the problem with so-called "gun control" -- the lawbreakers, whether just plain criminal or flatly insane, don't give a damn about the law.  That's the entire point of why we call their acts "crimes"; were they to give a damn the problem wouldn't exist.

It sucks that there is a certain percentage of people who are violent jackasses but you can't change that, nor can you change their willingness to break the law up front, including acquiring weaponry of various sorts.  All you can do is give people the tools to be able to protect themselves if the worst comes to pass -- and the closer the ability to mount a defense is when necessary the better the odds of success.

It is for this reason that I support the original intent of the founders when it comes to firearms and advocate strongly for the 2nd Amendment meaning exactly what it says -- it is your right to keep and bear arms as your conscience directs.  The very premise of a "permit" violates that right and as such those structures and laws are unsupportable as they criminalize acts that harm no person or property.

It is only your abuse of said right, defined as your actual assault, battery or injury to another person or property through other than a legitimate defensive act, that should be considered a crime.

It appears that of the current candidates Trump has come closest, thus far, to staking out that position.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Gee, you don't think this is a singularity, right?

What I discovered was that the world of Ashley Madison was a far more dystopian place than anyone had realized. This isn’t a debauched wonderland of men cheating on their wives. It isn’t even a sadscape of 31 million men competing to attract those 5.5 million women in the database. Instead, it’s like a science fictional future where every woman on Earth is dead, and some Dilbert-like engineer has replaced them with badly-designed robots.

Read the entire article folks -- out of millions of alleged "women" there were perhaps 12,000 actual women on the site.  The rest were fake, robots, or something else.

Now here's the ugly -- there are a whole host of alleged dating sites out there and all of them charge money for at least some of their services.  So here's the question: How many of the "women" on all of those sites are real?

Are there a few?  Sure, and if you're a woman looking for a guy you have a lot of choice.  So for women, perhaps, these sites are a "good deal" -- if you can fight off the animal-style attention that comes from being one piece of meat on the ground in a den full of millions of hungry male lions!

But for men it's a different matter entirely.  Perhaps at one time there was a point to such sites; indeed, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away I did meet a few interesting people on a couple of them.

Is that still possible?

It would appear the answer may well be "No", and thus there is no value in such a venue for ordinary, heterosexual guys -- particularly when you're being asked to pay for it.

This has interesting implications, if and when it gets proved up, for those firms providing these services and charging men for them.  I wonder if anyone has ever asked those firms, especially the publicly-traded ones that own some of these sites, if their alleged "women counts" have been audited to see if they are, well, you know, real women -- that is, what percentage of those alleged "female profiles" actually correspond to someone of the female sex that actually is who she says she is and is actually on the site and active.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Wow...

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Hmmm....

Rosie O’Donnell’s adopted daughter, Chelsea, has left home to live with her birth mother, a representative for the actress told FOX411 on Wednesday.

O'Donnell's representative said she “made the decision” when she was 18.

That didn't have anything to do with Rosie confiscating her phone and turning it over to the cops, resulting in someone she may have been with on a consensual basis being charged with a couple of felonies, would it?

If that's what happened here, and especially if Chelsea left because she was tired of Rosie's **** (which was probably the case) then **** you with a rusty chainsaw Rosie.

What was the time line here - a couple of days prior to Chelsea's 18th birthday?  Looks like it, given the dateline on this story -- and the previous one.

If I ever find Rosie O'Donnell being eaten by a shark -- I'm cheering the shark on.

smiley

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2015-08-27 05:00 by Karl Denninger
in Monetary , 309 references
 

No, really?

As I've discussed at length, there are many catalysts in play in the market’s turn, from fears about China to corporate earnings and commodity prices. But at the core, much of this plunge is about a loss of faith in cheap money stimulus. It's as simple as that.

Loss of faith?

The problem isn't simply that "central banks will rescue us."  It's that the world economic system has become addicted to a 30 year trend of fiscal irresponsibility that long ago crossed the line into abject fraud, and utterly nobody has gone to prison for it.

Specifically, the "I can afford $10,000 in interest, so how much can I borrow?" paradigm has become embedded not only among business but more importantly among governments of all stripes as well.

When the rate of interest is 10% the answer is $100,000, of course.

The problem is not that you borrowed the money, it's that you did so for any purpose other than capital investment that has a return greater than the carrying cost and principal over the life of the loan.

That in turn means you never intended to pay the debt off at all, only to roll it over.  In other words you didn't "borrow" at all; you instead took someone's money and spent it, permanently removing their capital and placing it into the marketplace for the purpose of consumption on the premise that you will forever more be able to continually pay that interest expense.

That's bad enough.  What's worse is that when the prevailing rate of interest is falling over a three-decade period (as has been the case) whenever the rollover time comes you "borrow" even more because you can do so with the same interest payment, spending that money on non-productive things as well.

So the $100,000 loan, as interest rates fall from 10% to 1% becomes a $1 million loan, and the entire million dollars gets spent into the economy as a whole.

That trend has now ended because there is a hard floor at zero.  In the best case rates simply flat-line here at which point you can no longer borrow more money -- and the game collapses as so-called "economic growth" also goes to zero.

In the worst case rates rise and you instantly go bankrupt as you can't afford to rollover.

Incidentally, if I remove this expansion just on a federal level in the last few years in the United States then GDP "growth" is under 1%, and since the population is expanding at about 1% as well this means that per-capita GDP is actually NEGATIVE and has been for the last several years.

How do you sustain so-called "market price increases" (for stocks among other things) when there is no per-capita GDP expansion and hasn't been for the last many years -- in fact, coming up on a solid decade of said non-performance?

Eventually people wake up to the lies as it flows through to the corporate balance sheet, and at that point you're done as debt-funded dividends collapse and non-dividend paying stocks are discovered to in fact be worth zero.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Why I Find It Hard To Give A F**k

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
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.

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.

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 reproduced 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 or for commercial use.

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.