The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
Revolt Or Collapse: Pick One

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.

2018-12-13 07:55 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 206 references
[Comments enabled]  

No, really, you mean the law really does apply?

Executives at more than a dozen generic-drug companies had a form of shorthand to describe how they conducted business, insider lingo worked out over steak dinners, cocktail receptions and rounds of golf.

The “sandbox,” according to investigators, was the market for generic prescription drugs, where everyone was expected to play nice.

“Fair share” described dividing up the sales pie to ensure that each company reaped continued profits. “Trashing the market” was used when a competitor ignored these unwritten rules and sold drugs for less than agreed-upon prices.

15 USC Chapter 1.

Which has been completely ignored by the Federal Government and its prosecutors now, when it comes to the medical industry generally, for 30+ years.

This, despite the fact that the industry twice, in concert with the insurance business, tried to claim exemptions.  Both of those cases went all the way to the Supreme Court and the medical and insurance industries lost both cases.

So the law does apply, and has been tested.

Doesn't matter.  The drug makers don't care.  They have broken the law with impunity.  And why not?  Nobody goes to prison.

If you think this is just about generic drugs, you're dead flat wrong.  It applies to everything in the medical industry.  The very premise of being unable to get a price as a customer while the very same hospital has negotiated a price with an insurance firm is in essence the definition of anti-trust.  Predatory, collusive behavior intended to prevent you from shopping -- that is, exercising competition.  15 USC Chapter 1 says that sort of behavior is a criminal felony.  Well?

Screwing people who can't negotiate violates all manner of anti-gouging laws that exist on the books in most states as well.  Those laws may have as their predicate natural disasters but few of them actually require that; most require only duress, which is why the motel has to post a sign on the back of the door with the "rack rate" and they can't bill you 10x that, or refuse to give you a price, before you sleep on the bed.  Never mind the implied covenant of fair dealing that is in all contracts and cannot be waived.

None of this stuff is hard to fix.  Enforce existing law and it all gets fixed.  Is it really that difficult?


So why are the states going after this?  Likely because Medicaid comes with an unfunded mandate they have to cover, and it's hurting them.  Finally.

Does the federal government care?  Obviously not, but they damn well should since Medicare alone spent over $1 trillion last fiscal year -- and likely paid close to 500% what they should have.

Yes, you read that right.

But heh, if you won't charge people and actually throw them in prison why shouldn't they break the law, even if the behavior in question has been a felony for the last 100+ years?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-12-12 12:13 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 167 references
[Comments enabled]  

Here we go.

Cohen goes to the big house for the same offense Hillary committed, Obama committed and Clinton committed.  Oh, and Bush probably did too.

Want to talk about rule of law again?

Yeah, ok... you can all STFU until Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with Obama are all doing three years -- at least -- for the same crime.

Which they all committed, and for which none of them were prosecuted.

PS: That includes anyone who claims Trump is a "Rule of Law" President or waves a "MAGA" anything within my vision.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-12-12 08:01 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 117 references
[Comments enabled]  

Now the truth comes out....

Two groups of Central American migrants marched to the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana on Tuesday with a list of demands, with one group delivering an ultimatum to the Trump administration: either let them in the U.S. or pay them $50,000 each to go home, a report said.

Or else..... what?

My response would be simple: Issue a call to all Americans who are willing and able to defend the border themselves.  Issue them blanket permission to stop anyone who sets foot on American soil over a marked border (e.g. by climbing a fence or tunneling under one) by whatever means are necessary.

These people are not fleeing for "humanitarian" reasons.  They're extortionists and extortion is a criminal felony.

In the context of international relations extortion is a casus belli.

Declare war against the US and then demand we pay you to stop it?  I have a answer to that.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-12-12 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 237 references
[Comments enabled]  

You won't though.

First, from the female point of view:

Our culture is so saturated with feminism that even conservatives and devoutly religious people like me think inside its wheel ruts. This wouldn’t be a problem, except that feminism is antithetical to human flourishing, both individually and corporately, because it has a false view of human nature.

No matter how the evidence piles up in heartbreak after heartbreak, many women continue to give themselves cognitive dissonance. We all want to believe that we’re exceptional, that patterns of human behavior don’t apply to us. That while bad things happened to other people who did the same things we are or want to, those bad things won’t happen to us, too. We’re special. We’re different.

The author goes on to tell how she, well.... ditched feminism.  By accident, mostly.  And then with intent, when she realized it was a false God.

There are some things that I can tell you up front though that are absolutely right.  One of them is the graph posted toward the end about how men see women when it comes to "pretty."  Ok, let's cut the crap -- sexually desirable.  Hint: Wait until you're 30 and you've got bad odds.  Wait until you're 35 and, well, I hope you like *******s.  Statistically, that's who's left among men, which means it's either that or a vibrator.

But there's a second problem that arises, which comes back to an essay I wrote a long time ago called "In A Perfect World."  It's no longer in publication; I will have to try to find it, but I certainly remember the gist of it.  You wouldn't like it if you're a "progressive thinker" but it was really only recapping what we've known for 10,000 years or so.  Not that the "post-modern" people think that's important.

It's simply this: Men and women are different but complimentary.  By trying to deny this through various mechanisms -- to make both more same in regard to policy and everything else around us we destroy both.

I can't speak to the female perspective in that first article above, except by observation of people I know who happen to be female.  Of course that makes my knowledge of her side of the subject second-hand at best, and that assumes I'm getting the straight story.  I'm probably not, even if unconsciously.

But then let's turn to the other side -- men.  That one I can speak to -- because I am one.

The first client was a high-end programmer who was bringing in a handsome salary in Austria.  He was 33, no debt, had his own place, and was in decent enough shape to turn ahead or two.  He spent his time traveling, enjoying life, sampling various cuisines in Europe, but he also enjoyed sampling something else - Austrian women.

Not that he was dating them.  They were prostitutes.  Prostitution is surprisingly legal in an otherwise stuffy country like Austria.  And he would have one or two prostitutes a month, allowing him to satisfy his sexual urges, as well as getting a variety of women which is at the core of all male genetic programming.  He could have gotten a girl through "traditional methods," but didn't want to waste the time because it was just easier, cheaper, and higher quality, to pay $150 Euro for a tight, in shape, 20 something to show up in a cute lingerie outfit, have sex with him,...and inevitably leave without drama or antics at the end.

The author goes on to talk about the basic problem, which dovetails with the first article -- if you're a highly-successful man, or on the path to become one and know it, why would you put up with the crap that many if not most young women dish out these days?

You don't have to.  You can fly to Austria and for $150 (Euros) you can have a nice *****, legally.  Or, for that matter in the United States, go out to Nevada where with two county exceptions prostitution is also legal.

That is, if you just want sex.  Of course there are the far less-honorable ways of obtaining it; playing with people's heads mostly.  It's not very smart though on an analytical perspective; it's definitely cheaper and far less dangerous all the way around to get on the plane.  No drinks, no dinners, no entanglements, no #metoo false allegations when she's bent the next morning that she slept with you. With a prostitute it's a simple business transaction: Money, screw, done.

Yeah, I know -- crass.  So what?

What makes it worth it for a man to want more?  Well, you have to give him a reason to want more.  And what's that?  A 50% chance he can actually raise a child in a 2-parent home?  Those are the odds nowdays.

Now think about this one folks -- what's coming out of our schools and what is being taught to our kids?  Where's the money being spent?  What's with all the "women's studies" degrees?  What value do they bring to the human enterprise?  How many ways of moving people and things, innovative drugs or procedures, and new technologies will "women's studies" produce in the next 10,000 years?


And more to the point, do any of these women want to raise a family and be a wife?

What if I'm 20 and I want to be a husband?  You know, me Tarzan, you Jane?  Yeah, I know, quaint, outdated, male pig.  Talk to me about "pig" when some 220lb thug kicks down the door at 0-dark-awcrap hellbent on rape; do you want soyboy or Mr. Bang-bang in bed with you?

Do women really believe their own bull**** these days?  If they do then why do they pen articles like this?

One female journalist has declared that “women-only seating sections on planes” is the way to a safer future in the high skies, avowing that the armrest in commercial passenger seating is a “gender political issue” in the wake of the #MeToo movement.


I thought all women were equals of men.  Now they want segregation because..... they're the weaker sex?

Oh my.

I know, I know, you're not her and everyone's special.  Go back and read the first quoted paragraph again.

You're not special chicky, and neither are you dude.

You're damned ordinary when it comes to how you're actually wired.

Does that mean that out of the "ordinary" 10%, 20% or whatever might not want -- ever -- to have kids?  Not at all.  There are women who are business tigers.  That's their thing.  They might even use their sexuality as a weapon in business (which is no less legitimate than a man using his money and power) but they don't want to use it to make babies.  That's because you can't do both and truly be successful at both.  It's not possible; there are only 24 hours in a day and the kid(s) want all of them.  The lie that you "can" have both and be successful at both is why there's this push for "paid parental leave."  It's bull****: The answer to that problem is that the couple picks one parent and he or she stays home and raises said children.

Don't tell me that's more "male sexist pig" either because I did exactly that when my marriage blew up and I ditched being a CEO of a successful company I built from the ground up to do it.  So take your sanctimonious bullcrap, ladies, and stick it up whichever hole you prefer.

There are a few men like tiger lady too; they don't give a damn about family -- at all.  Some of them have trophies for wives; for some it's a business deal, others cycle through women because one or the other wasn't completely honest.  Being that cranked in one area tends to do that; you're a prick in every other area, mostly because you have to be.  The focus is that intense.  It's ok -- but that's not the 90th percentile of people and trust me on this, because I've been where I could have gone down that road and turned it down: If you have ever considered it the wrong choice it is the wrong choice. 

If you chase that path anyway it will destroy you.  It is the very odd person who is wired this way and if you try to force yourself down that road and are not in that couple of percent you'll drive yourself insane and wind up severely depressed, on drugs or chronically drunk and probably dead.

Go read the first article link again.:

My apathy is coming out in weird ways. I’m drinking too much, and when I do see my friends on occasion, I end up getting drunk and angry or sad or both and pushing them away. And with men I date, I feel pressure to make something of the relationship too soon (move in, get married, ‘I have to have kids in a couple of years’; fun times!). All the while still trying to be the sexpot 25-year-old I thought I was until what seemed like a moment ago.

I used to think I was the one who had it all figured out. Adventurous life in the city! Traveling the world! Making memories! Now I feel incredibly hollow. And foolish.

Down that road she went, and she wasn't in the 2%.  Now she's ****ed because you can never get back the time you spend.

For everyone else -- that's the 98% of us -- there's how men and women really are wired.  We've done our level damndest best to destroy it with lies and trillions of dollars.  Every ****ing school system in the land today runs this crap from kindergarten onward.  The majority of "students" in college today are running up debts chasing worthless nonsense spewed by people who don't give a damn about anything but their own paycheck.

Don't do it folks.

Look, men are not mostly pigs.  We're just different than women.  But if women want real relationships with men then there has to be a deal on both sides that recognizes those differences and yet bridges the gap so that a man is not a second-class citizen in that deal.  It's a choice, not a sexist trap.

Yet that's exactly what both men and women are being told today.

Look, I'm quite an old bastard by most standards today.  I'm way past the point where any 20 year old woman finds me interesting.  I can still run faster than most women that age (with a few really notable exceptions) but that's just testosterone at play which she lacks the bodily parts to make.  I'll lose that too; if I can do it at 60 I'll be pleasantly surprised.

That's a good thing by the way; it's why I think she's cute, and why I thought she was cute when we were both 14 too.

No, this piece is for those reading who are younger.  If things go sideways for me I'll be ok living on my own.  See, that's another difference -- men are much-less likely to have this sort of thought:

You have other concerns when you get older and you live alone. Who’s going to take you to your medical appointments? If something should happen to you, there’s no other income there to help you. 

What is that bull****?  That's not just my age (55) talking either; I've never had that sort of thought centered in my mind.  Ever.  I always saw it differently -- if something happened to me then I die.  If I can't get to the doctor then I die.  And?  We all die.  It doesn't scare me.  It never did.  Is that a sex thing?  Hell, I don't know -- but I do know that among the men I've hung out with this has never been a topic of conversation: "I want a wife so when I get old and feeble she can cart my ugly ass to the doctor!"

Then there's the other cliche.....’s lonely when you see your friends having children, going on vacations, planning the lives of their children, and you don’t do anything at night but come home to your cats and dogs…

This one has a nice meme:

You don't really want that.... do you?

Well then change your mind while you're young enough to have it matter, lest that show up on your door.

There's a rumor going around the Internet that you can get it on Amazon.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-12-11 19:03 by Karl Denninger
in Foreign Policy , 138 references
[Comments enabled]  

This much is clear.

Trump should immediately call upon Congress to issue a conditional letter of Marque and Reprisal, to become active if Meng is discovered to have violated any condition of her bond, including but not limited to leaving Canada.

Valid worldwide.

Bring me her head, in short, and $10 million in US Currency is yours.

She's going to honor the Rule of Law and appear?  Fine.  No problem.

She doesn't?

Then a bunch of privateers find her and bring her back.

In pieces.

To all of Congress: You say you're serious about the Iran sanctions, state-sponsored spying by China and intellectual property theft?  Then you either do this, right now, or you're lying and every last one of the 535 of you can STFU now and forevermore.

By the way this is perfectly Constitutional.  Go see Article 1, Section 8.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)