The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

There's a lot of hand-wringing going on about the case of a guy who managed to make it over the White House fence and well into the building before being tackled.

Secret Service Director Julia Pierson will face questions about how an armed intruder jumped the White House fence and made it as far as the East Room when she testifies before a House committee on Tuesday. 

Sources confirmed to Fox News on Monday that 42-year-old Omar Gonzalez overpowered a Secret Service officer in the Sept. 19 incident -- this led to a struggle and "wrestling" inside the executive mansion as he darted through. Gonzalez was eventually tackled by a counter-assault agent in the East Room after he reached the doorway to the Green Room, a parlor overlooking the South Lawn. 

And?

Who's been to Washington DC since 9/11?  Do you like the gulag-style enhancements you see around The White House and other buildings in the Capitol complex?  Who remembers it before 9/11?

You used to be able to walk into the Capitol Rotunda; no problem.  Wander around the grounds, no problem.  Right up the steps, yep.  Walk into any of the House or Senate office buildings unchallenged, right through any of their (many) doors, into an elevator or up the stairs to call on your critter?  Yep; did it many times myself.  No metal detectors, no lines, no bull****; walk right on in like it should be since it is in fact your building (who do you think paid for it?)

While the White House always had a fence of sorts, the gulag-style barricade nonsense wasn't anywhere near what you see today and there was none of this "No Go" zone nonsense.

How many people tried to assault the Capitol and White House on 9/11?  Zero; there was a plane intended for one of the two that the passengers refused to allow to be used as a bomb -- it crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

No ground-based assault was planned or attempted -- anywhere -- on 9/11.

Look, I get it -- there are people who, for whatever reason (mental illness or simple hatred) want to "get at" people in our government.  But the simple fact of the matter is that the decision to run for public office comes with risk to one's personal safety, whether you want it to or not.  In response some reasonable level of enhanced security makes sense; thus, we have the Secret Service that has as one of its primary mission the protection of the President and First Family.

However, there is a basic disconnect between claiming to be the leader of the free world while cowering behind high fences, concrete barricades and phalanx's of various security apparatus -- including said phalanx of people.

Words may mean things but actions mean more, and the simple fact of the matter is that The President ought to be one of the people, which means that if he wants to go out for a Starbucks at 3:00 PM some day he should do so, right out in public.

Yeah, I get it that this comes with risk.  So what?

You can have perfect security if you want it, but that doesn't look like freedom to me, and a prison of your own design inside of which you cower is a choice that you may choose to make but in fact it makes no sense if you claim to be a free nation.

The American Issue, as Cummings just said, is that we seem to think that perfect security and cordons, fences and such are compatible with freedom and the symbolism it sends is as well.

Wrong Mr. Cummings.

Worse are the views being expressed by folks like Chaffetz -- who wants to see the Secret Service shoot anyone who intrudes on one of their "cordons."  How is that compatible with a so-called "free country" -- step over this line and we'll drill you without a second thought.

The symbolism and beliefs expressed through actions of our government are far more important than the words jackasses like these speak in their shielded, guarded and fenced enclaves.  Our elected representatives and President ought to walk the talk; risk is part of being a leader in a free society, and if you're unwilling to accept it then step aside in favor of someone who is. 

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

C'mon guys, cut the ****:

The judge overseeing Detroit's bankruptcy refused Monday to stop the city from shutting off water if people can't pay their bill, saying there's no right to water and the law doesn't give him the power to keep the taps open anyway.

Judge Steven Rhodes gave critics of the shutoffs a two-day hearing last week. He said their arguments were "interesting and creative" but couldn't trump the legal standard under bankruptcy law or constitutional law — or the potential harm to Detroit's perilous finances.

He's right.

Never mind that there is plenty of water within walking distance of most residents of Detroit.

There is a very large river that runs right next to it, remember?

Oh, you want that water filtered, chlorinated and pumped to you, and then you want your dirty water (particularly the water you took a crap into) handled and properly sanitized?

That all costs money.

What gives you the idea that it's "free"?  It's never free; someone has to pay.  That someone should be you.

I know, it's "expensive."  Well, not really.  Not any more than it is most other places with city water systems.  And let's face it, city water systems are pretty good on-balance.  You may think a well and septic are cheaper, and for a while they may be -- right up until your drain field clogs or there's some problem with the water coming out of the well, or your pump simply breaks.

Then you get a big bill, right now, and if you can't pay it.... no water.

This isn't the same situation as Jefferson County in Alabama where banks conspired, complete with actual bribery, to rip everyone else.  No, this is a city that has a working water system and a plentiful fresh source.  It just needs to be filtered, chlorinated and pumped, then the sewage dealt with. 

Just like everywhere else.

The people who are getting cut off aren't getting cut off for being a couple of months behind.  These are people who haven't paid bills in ten years in some cases; we're talking bills of thousands of dollars.

And by the way, the sewer bill is roughly double the water amount in Detroit and elsewhere.  That's because it's more complicated and expensive to filter and sanitize your **** than it is to pump you the water in the first place.

Those who want to claim that Detroit's water charges are "outrageous" are lying.  They are not much different than mine are here in NW Florida and in fact are quite reasonable.  If you're interested in a comparison look at Atlanta, which you can find online here -- the average family in Atlanta, according to the city, uses 8 ccf a month.   Of course I could have a much cheaper water bill (zero!) if I was to move out of the incorporated area, dug a well and septic, and did it myself.  But then I'd be on the hook for the entire cost of both, plus their maintenance and repair -- so while that "looks" cheaper it may not be, especially over time.

If you're enough of a deadbeat to let your water bill go for months, even years, you should have been cut off a very long time ago. Around here you'll get about three weeks past the due date, then you're going to wake up and find that the shower doesn't work and the toilet doesn't flush.

That's how it should have been then and how it should be now.  Quit buying lottery tickets, smokes and booze and pay the damned water bill instead.  You know damn well these people are getting welfare, Section 8 housing and food stamps never mind their cars and fancy cellphones. 

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Damn you're either ignorant or stupid.

After reading this article you can no longer claim ignorance, and whether or not Faceburgler still has a customer base remaining after this piece of information goes into that vacuum between your ears that should have a decent amount of density will tell me whether or not you're collectively stupid!

SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook built itself into the No. 2 digital advertising platform in the world by analyzing the vast amount of data it had on each of its 1.3 billion users to sell individually targeted ads on its social network.

Now it is going to take those targeted ads to the rest of the Internet, mounting its most direct challenge yet to Google, the leader in digital advertising with nearly one-third of the global market.

Yes, everyone expects that when you are on Facebook they're looking at what you do -- what you "like" or don't, whether you click through various articles and such, and on and on and on.

You're product to Facebook, in short -- how else can you wind up with something like that being "free"?  Nothing is ever free and that which you're not told the price of is never sold based on it being a good deal -- you're not told the price because if you were there's no way you'd allow the transaction to continue.

But now, buried in here, well...

The Facebook login is most useful on mobile devices, where traditional web tracking tools like cookies and pixel tags do not work. If a person is logged into the Facebook app on a smartphone, the company has the ability to see what other apps he or she is using and could show ads within those apps.

Got it yet?

No, your "disclosure" is not limited to what you intentionally do on Facebook.

See what you "got" when you "agreed" to the permissions that Facebook has on your mobile device as you installed it?

Welcome to Amerika comrade, where the biggest threats to you and your future are not found in the government.  They're found in data brokers who have a myriad of information that they acquired through your "voluntary" consent -- usually given without a bit of consideration as to exactly what you were consenting to!

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Notice what is not said here -- that this choice has consequences but that it's valid.

Now ask yourself this -- would this article have ever been published if the CEO in question was a woman?

The CEO of a $2 trillion investment fund said he made the decision to resign from his post after his young daughter wrote him a note listing 22 milestones he had missed in her life.

California-based Mohamed El-Erian left his job as chief executive of PIMCO in mid-March. The 56-year-old El-Erian, who made $100 million in 2011 alone, chose to leave his post after his 10-year-old daughter wrote about all the special moments he was absent for in her life.

Now granted it's rather easy to say "nuts!" when you're that rich.  But let's face it -- this is something that, once you choose to have kids, you face daily.  It's a decision that is deeply personal and has both risks and benefits.  It is often put forward as a "woman's issue" but it is not; it impacts both genders.

And no, you have no right to claim that there's something magical or special about you being a parent in the context of your career or even just your job.  The decision to have children is in fact a personal one and a choice, as it comes with both benefits and costs.

Years ago I decided to walk away from opportunities to start another company or engage in the sort of work schedule that I used to have.  My daughter was very young, and I made the decision to sell MCSNet and semi-retire.

She recently turned 18, and I don't regret my decision in any way.  I don't regret for one minute earning (much) less money over that period of time, the law degree I did not pursue, the various business ventures I didn't chase or the decision to move to and live in a place far safer and more friendly than the common big city -- but without any of the big city opportunities.  I was with her at the bus stop for the first morning of school, I was there for the soccer practices and games, I got to see both the smiles and the not-so-great expressions over the years.

I believe that the first and foremost job of a parent is to manage the transition from a relationship of utter dependence and therefore power to one founded in the mutual respect of equals, and while nobody does a perfect job of that I'm largely satisfied with my performance.

Most importantly I wouldn't take that decision back for one second but utterly nobody owes me anything for having made it, and I refuse to give one bit of respect to anyone arguing they should in some way be given a pass in their career (or some sort of handout) for making a similar choice irrespective of degree.  Indeed, any man or woman who so-argues is a pig and an extortionist, as you already got the benefits directly simply by being there.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Watch out this week...... volatility is likely to be rather..... elevated.

First, this is a very heavy data week, with the Jobs report coming this Friday (I expect it to be weaker than expected, by the way) and the end of the quarter prompting trips to the confessional for firms that are about to start reporting crap, er, earnings.

This morning Peter Fisher is on CNBS talking truth -- which I pointed out when I wrote Leverage -- that increased debt is NOT progress.  That in fact all you're doing is borrowing from tomorrow; that is, pulling forward demand.  What he didn't say, but should have, is that this is a negative sum game because not only is the car bought today on credit one you don't need tomorrow but because there is interest involved you depress tomorrow's purchasing power by more than the cost of the car.

That isn't to say that there isn't a place for debt -- but it is to say that borrowing to consume, which is what is being stoked and indeed what Bernanke, Yellen and other central bankers think they can "manage", is always and everywhere a game that comes with back end costs that are greater than the benefits, and those costs are at their worst when they come through increased government debt.

The old saying is "Don't fight The Fed."  I'll add one to that: Don't believe they're acting in your best interest, or that even the magical Federal Reserve seal and pomp mean that the laws of mathematics have been repealed or evaded, because neither is ever the case.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
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.