The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
There Can Be NO Compromise On Data

Display list of topics

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
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.

There is a reason that anti-trust law was put in place.  It makes unlawful, under ruinous monetary penalties and hard prison time, any attempt to monopolize a market or restrain trade.  You can read that law at 15 USC Chapter 1; the first two sections are particularly germane.

It does not require that prices rise for consumers for there to be a violation.

It does not require that you be able to discern at the point in time the event happens what the specifics of outcome will be or that they will be "damaging".

It declares the conduct a felony -- the mere attempt to monopolize a market or restrain trade -- because it was known at the time, more than 100 years ago, that those who do this sort of thing are sneaky, conniving jackasses who will make all sorts of arguments, and many will believe them, that these acts will "help" the common man, lead to "innovation" and be of "social benefit."

Our "Just-US" system in the US has willfully and intentionally ignored, along with unlawfully re-writing this body of law from the bench, over the last 100 and especially the last 30 years.

Specifically it is no longer considered "anti-trust" unless you can prove user-paid prices rose -- and often not even then.  But the law was never changed; it never has required any such event, nor does it today.  This act by the judiciary and prosecutors (the executive) is open sedition in that it is the deliberate overthrow of a republican form of government by subversion and literal deadly force, since such "agencies" issue firearms and use the ability to imprison those with whom they disagree.  Sedition is a specific federal felony and all in the alleged executive and judiciary who have practiced it in this regard must be thrown from office and jailed now while we are in the process of lawfully dismantling and jailing every single one of these corporate executives.

I will here focus of Facebook and the specific, actionable statements they are alleged to have made that if true proves their intent and felony violation of the law.

A senior Facebook executive has privately admitted Mark Zuckerberg “doesn’t care” about publishers and warned that if they did not work with the social media giant, “I’ll be holding your hands with your dying business like in a ­hospice”.

In extraordinary comments, Campbell Brown, Facebook’s global head of news partnerships, indicated to publishers and broad­casters in a four-hour meeting last week that despite Mr Zuckerberg’s view, she would help publishers build sustainable business models through Facebook.

 Note that this is in direct contravention to what Zuckerberg said to US Congress under oath, which makes it an act of perjury as well.

15 USC Chapter 1 exists for this exact reason; these firms believe they are entirely beyond the reach of the law and may do as they wish with their own motive being profit, irrespective of their legal obligations.  The law says otherwise but thus far nobody within the US Federal or State governments will take them on, just as they will not take on the medical monopolists who do the same damn thing.

Every one of these firms (not just Facesucker) must be destroyed using existing law that has been on the books for more than 100 years.  Imprisoning all of their executives for 10 years for each attempt and fining them $100 million for each such attempt will destroy all of them.

That is exactly what the law provides and what must take place right here, right now.

If the government will not enforce the law as written then we, as citizens are no longer bound by the alleged "laws" of said government as a contractual agreement to which one is bound requires consideration by both sides.  If one side (the government) repeatedly, continually and maliciously acts in bad faith and fails to uphold their end of the bargain the other has no further obligation toward same.


View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-08-15 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 79 references
[Comments enabled]  


Several hundred Roman Catholic priests in Pennsylvania were accused of sexually abusing more than a thousand children, a grand jury report on Tuesday said, in an alleged “cover-up” described as “sophisticated” by the state’s attorney general.

Hundreds of priests in one state abused well north of a thousand kids.

Three hundred priests.

The Church not only knew about it they kept records of it and covered it up.

Multiply by 50.  How many priests and how many kids?  Uh huh.

Now go back and read this Ticker again, which I released just a few days ago.

Once you have, go get some coffee or a beer.

Consume it.

Now come back and read both articles again.

Repeat as many times as you need to until it sinks in what's been going on here and you understand that this is not limited to the Catholic Church; it in fact is the case throughout the entire government and not just in the US either.

It is why despite 100+ year old law making it a felony to in any way try to restrain trade or monopolize a business not one single medical provider has been indicted.

It is why despite virtually every large financial institution committing repeated felony level criminal acts -- in fact I wrote an article years ago documenting that essentially every large bank would have violated the "three strikes" laws in most states -- not one has been shut down nor has one executive gone to prison for life, as you would for theft at the same scale.

It is why despite multiple, repeated felony violations by pharma manufacturers, some taking place while being prosecuted for previous acts, not one executive from those firms has gone to prison nor have any of those firms been shut down.

It is why despite repeated apparent felony violations of 15 USC Chapter 1 among tech firms there have been zero prosecutions nor have any of those firms been shut down (nor have any of those executives gone to prison.)

It is why Elon Musk thinks he can get away with buying stock while holding material inside information on discussions with the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund, which, if he really did hold such discussions constitute a slam dunk insider trading case and, I remind you, they just busted a sitting Congressman for the very same thing.  Incidentally that act carries a 20 year felony prison sentence.

All of the above and more is why the Federal Government is running huge deficits and has for the last 20 years.  It is why you are getting screwed.  It is why jobs have been offshored relentlessly, illegal invaders pick all your strawberries yet not one farm executive or farmer has gone to prison either and middle-class America has been destroyed.

It is all illegal, it has all been covered up and the victims are not just a bunch of kids being sodomized by priests.

The victims are virtually every person in the United States except those who are rich and powerful enough to be able to do these things and not face decades in prison.

Were you or I was to do the same thing, we'd be behind bars right now.

Yes, the entire Catholic Church in the United States must be criminally prosecuted, due to the actual knowledge and cover-up of these acts all the way up to the Vatican.

The entire set of assets held by same in the US must be seized and everyone personally involved must be prosecuted and imprisoned.

But we must not stop there.

We MUST apply the same sanction to every single one of the above lines of business where any such acts occurred and ALL of their executives.

You either put a stop to all of this crap America -- not just the pedophile priests -- or sit down and shut up for you like fascism, you like being screwed, you like being bankrupted and you don't give a good damn about people breaking the law -- and thus when your family is personally victimized -- past, present or future -- I do not want to hear about it.

Are you ready to call and honor a general strike yet?

If not why not?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-08-14 13:05 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 65 references


Snakes, I tell you!  There are snakes crawling out of the wall!  AIEEEEEEE!

Yeah, ok chickie, put down the acid..... smiley

Email to put this unique, one-of-a-kind piece of abstract art on your wall!

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-08-14 12:51 by Karl Denninger
in Company Specific , 101 references
[Comments enabled]  

Sleep with dogs, wake up with fleas -- or get sexed.

It used to be that "online dating" (which is really nothing of the sort) had at least some colorable reality attachment.  This was in the days of dozens of actual competing sites and web properties -- Yahoo dating, Match, PlentyOfFish, OkCupid and many more. I have personally used several of them over the last 20 years and prior to about 10 years ago met a few interesting people, and had a couple of good relationships come out of it.

But over the last decade or so IAC/Match has "swallowed" all of them -- including virtually all of the "newer" ones, such as Tinder, which was inextricably tied to Facesucker (you had to have a Facesucker account to register on it.)

Thus, while there are still many "names" in so-called "online dating" there is in fact only one company -- IAC/Match.  Of course that's not apparent when you have dozens of alleged "brands"......

Match was spun off but the fact remains that this is an effective monopoly business with exactly one large firm controlling effectively all of the so-called "online dating" space.

The "space" has become riven through with fraud, scams and schemes, with the most-obvious being the simple: The entire point of these sites is to extract money from you in the form of a subscription, and how that happens doesn't much matter.

Let's face it, "love" (and sex) is one of the big "push-buttons" for virtually everyone.  Tinder was referred to a couple of years ago by some runners I know as Tinder-banging and with good reason.  Meh; if you're into looking for an online meat market for a quickie I suppose it works, but swipe right just isn't my thing.

So it's no surprise that now we hear that the Tinder founders are suing IAC, alleging manipulation and game-playing to basically rob them of the value of their stock options.

Let's be real here -- IAC has seen an explosive increase in its valuation over the last few years as has the spun-off part known as "Match."  Does anyone actually believe the bull**** put forward that one finds "love" via such a mechanism?

Or is it far more-likely that IAC/Match has used the same tools Facesucker does to push your buttons in such a way that you believe if you just spend another $20, $50 or $100 you'll find "love" -- but you never actually do and that's by design and intent, not accident.

Oh, don't get me wrong -- I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to the rule but let's just apply basic logic -- if you get on one of their sites, find your "true love" and are honest and interested in one person neither of you ever spends another nickel with said firm ever again.  How does such an outcome work out for IAC/Match's stock price?  Not so good, right?

So what do you think the odds are of their "testimonials" being in any way related to reality rather than this firm instead running a basic dopamine extraction racket -- just like Zuck****?

Logic sucks doesn't it -- and while the Tinder executives may well be right as to the merits of their case (we'll see) I find it rather amusing that a service that was founded on the idea of screwing anything that walks irrespective of whether you're truly single or not, turning sex into nothing more than an electronic version of a free *****-house, has now led its founders into...... getting screwed.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-08-14 11:51 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 135 references
[Comments enabled]  

Scratch another state off my maybe I should live there list....

The state judge who on Monday set a $20,000 bail for five defendants arrested at a remote New Mexico compound where authorities say children were being trained to conduct school shootings has a history of issuing low bail to violent offenders.

Judge Sarah Backus, an elected Democrat, ordered the two men and three women wear ankle monitors, have weekly contact with their attorneys and not consume alcohol or own firearms while on bail. She said although she was concerned by “troubling facts,” prosecutors failed to articulate any specific threats to the community.

Oh really?

Teaching kids to shoot up schools as an act of jihad isn't a "specific threat"?

Never mind the rather-clear evidence that one of the defendants kidnapped his son, crossed state lines unlawfully with him and that said kid ultimately died in no small part as a consequence?  Remember that this kid had specific medical needs -- needs which were unmet, and now the kid is missing, although a child's remains were found there (and are presumed to be him -- but this is not yet confirmed.)

This is "no specific threat" to the community either?

Yeah, ok.

It's not against the law to live in an "unconventional" manner.  But it is against the law to kidnap a child, and it is against the law to harbor a fugitive who has done so and fled across state lines.

So tell me once again what justification exists for this ruling and why the people of New Mexico stand for it?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)