The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Editorial]
2017-02-24 08:17 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 424 references
[Comments enabled]  

Spicer (Trump's press sec) made some comments that could be construed as a threat to the recreational marijuana industry in some states, and some people are up in arms over it.

Let me point out a few inconvenient facts:

  • Marijuana is not "Schedule 1" because it has no accepted medical use.  It is Schedule 1 because of political considerations dating back decades and, there is a decent argument for, monopoly considerations by the Hearst family at the time.

  • Both recreational and medical weed advocates have done exactly zippo to force a change in that scheduling, and despite the so-called "acceptance" of President Obama for both he did not do so either.  So get your mouth of Obama's schwantz, along with getting your mouth off your Congresscritter's butthole.  The responsibility to do this the right way, which would have been de-scheduling marijuana entirely, lies there and it lies with you.

  • It is my considered position that marijuana does not belong on the narcotic schedule at all -- not only does hemp have perfectly-valid industrial use (clothing, rope, paper, etc) and it was the threat of competition thereof that partly led to it being made illegal but it also has documented medical use (including but not limited to an adjunct to chemotherapy, a primary treatment for certain forms of epilepsy and a treatment for dyskinesis associated with Parkinson's disease.)

None of the "advocates" have made their mission in life to get the substance off the federal DEA schedule and focused their attention, advocacy and political threats there.  Instead they have tried to go around the law, to get willful and intentional refusal to enforce the law made policy and similar machinations, with fairly decent degrees of success.

There is a problem with this approach: It is exactly why this nation is on the verge of destruction.

Let me remind you of the inconvenient facts: Federal expenditures on Medicaid and Medicare are expanding at a roughly 9% annualized, compounded rate.  Obamacare, which had as its essence the use of force to compel the purchase of fraudulent "insurance" by every person in the nation, bought two years of very-material decrease in this expansion after which it went right back to where it had been for the previous couple of decades.

Let me also remind you that willful and intentional refusal to enforce anti-trust law against all medical firms -- hospitals, diagnostic centers, your local physician's group practice, drug companies and supply firms along with insurance "deals" -- is why this rate of expansion has occurred and it will detonate the federal budget within the next five years if it is not conclusively stopped and unwound, returning a now nearly-$4 trillion industry to its former percentage of GDP, which would be about $1 trillion.

That's right -- a reduction of more than 75% in both cost and expenditure must take place now, at which point virtually everyone could afford to pay cash.

May I remind you what not demanding and forcing that change -- which is nothing more than enforcing the Rule Of Law -- means?

  • If you are dependent on continuing medical or pharmaceutical intervention to have a decent life (or any life at all) you are going to be utterly and completely screwed -- or dead.

  • If you are not dependent on same today, but you get sick tomorrow, you will be either bankrupted, screwed (left to suffer), dead or (most-probably) all three.

  • Better than half of all adults today in the United States are, or will be within a few years, dependent on said medical and/or pharmaceutical intervention. smiley

  • These firms and individuals in the "health" business will continue their plunder to the detriment of every other program you want from government, no matter what it is, along with your personal wealth and they both have and will use the government's monopoly on force to take whatever they want from you despite their actions being clearly and obviously, upon simple reading of the statutes in question, contrary to same and this will continue until all of those other programs collapse.

Folks you can no more claim to support The Rule of Law and the Constitution but take a black sharpie marker to the parts you don't like than you can claim to be a Christian and similarly take a black sharpie marker to the 10 Commandments and reduce the count to three!

What is it with the willing and intentional refusal to think logically and then apply the results of same to political activity and advocacy that has permeated 95% or more of the American public?  I recently "disappeared" from the so-called "social side" of life for a week or so including taking in some live music, some pleasant drive time and some hiking specifically to erect the middle finger at that 95% of the American public for this very reason.

I'm going to be doing a lot more of that until and unless the people of this nation wake up and cut the crap.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2017-02-23 09:25 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 378 references
[Comments enabled]  

There were some "proclamations" made by various "reporters" that "many arrests" (30 was a popular number) were "imminent" and would be made "within a week" after Sessions was confirmed -- on "Pizzagate."

Well, it's been well more than a week, and the only 900lb Gorilla in the room was Flynn's "resignation" (really a firing, as far as I can tell.)  Yes, there have been a handful of raids on various people allegedly abusing kids -- including an "international adoption agency" -- but the number of high level (e.g. political or corporate leadership) individuals accused, apprehended or charged numbers, as far as I can tell thus far, zero.

May I remind readers that the one thing that could really change Washington DC -- and improve life for the average America -- was a restoration of the Rule of Law.

Specifically, in the area of anti-trust (medical care) where the cost would fall by as much as 90% in a day, making "health insurance" unnecessary for anything except true catastrophes.

In addition getting the blackmail-and-bribery crap out of DC, even if only a bit, would be a big step forward too.  You don't really think those "lobbyists" are all just "politely asking" for favors, do you?  After all, lobbyists usually can't even vote in the district or state in question!

But no, it hasn't happened.  None of it.  There's been zero on the medical scams out of Trump, particularly where he can act without Congress and in fact Congress can't stop him: Enforcement of 15 USC Chapter 1 against the entire medical, drug and health insurance industry.  And don't give me this crap about how it's "not possible" because the States have filed suits.

As for "pizzagate", which a few "pundits" (some of whom make their money selling their views) said would have arrests inbound this last week..... where are they?  Hell, Sandusky's adopted son just got accused of diddling kids, but in DC?  Zippo.

That's the easy stuff folks.  The hard stuff is where they try to kill you or your family when you take it on.  Like, for example, the likely truth behind $1,200 "toilet seats" and $500 "hammers" within the DOD procurement process.

What we have seen is that various government departments and agencies leak like a sieve whenever something they don't like might be on the table.  And that leads to a very inconvenient question: Exactly how far off is "accidentally not looking" when you're supposed to when we have hard proof that there are active "leaks" all over the government?

Traitors are traitors; you don't have to do the dastardly deed, you just have to not pay attention at a particular time.  There are plenty of evil bastards who will take care of the rest and leaking embarrassing material is more both dangerous in that you might get caught and requires far more effort than not looking when you should be.

Is there any particular reason to believe any of the crap in this country will ever get addressed -- especially the really ugly and dangerous stuff -- when not even the basic economic actions that require no new laws and in fact are simply directing people to enforce existing statutes are once again intentionally ignored and in fact the scams are cheered on by people like Rand Paul in the Senate?

No.

Yes, the directives out of ICE and the change in our nation's posture when it comes to criminal illegal aliens (most of whom violate not just the law coming here but they also victimize individuals and society generally through identity theft and similar crimes - and those violations are nearly-universal) are positive -- and I certainly hope they continue.

But the problem with cheering on such changes is that they're 5% of the problem and while objectively good are not enough to matter.  Even if Trump goes after the pedo games hard it's not enough to matter. The pushing of "electoral reform" is a joke and in fact I'd argue it's an intentionally false dog-whistle that will force the expenditure of political capital on a useless goalall it would do is change how resources are allocated by candidates in elections.

The 80% of the problem is found in our medical monopoly scams which render the cost of medical care five to ten times as expensive as it would be absent same and the fact that at the growth rates seen over the last 30 years both the private sector and government will detonate within the next four to five years.  Even worse the Republicans have filed bills to "change" Obamacare in ways that will make some of these schemes explicitly legal where plain reading of federal law makes clear they currently are not, guaranteeing you will be screwed rather than helped.

Trump has demonstrated exactly no intent to change anything in this regard -- and that's a fact.

It's unfortunate too because in just a few short years our time is going to run out as a nation in this regard.

The opportunity was there for Trump to be one of our greatest Presidents.

He's squandering it and instead spending his political capital on "red meat" that, while good and proper is in fact simply tinkering around the edges and soon, if he does not act in this regard, the opportunity to avoid this preventable disaster will be irretrievably lost.

I hate being right, but the fact is that absent massive shifts in focus and tone within mere days to a few weeks the jury is in.  The stock market certainly says so: It's up massively, and a big part of where those 'profits' come from are H1b visa holders displacing Americans (does anyone actually believe JP Morgan can't get Americans to do these jobs?), Apple, Facebook and Google doing the same, or, for that matter, Disney.  Why are health related firms, like the IBB (biotech index) not cratering under the premise that 90% of their revenue will disappear when they can't bilk consumers any more?

You know the truth folks and it takes 30 seconds to figure it out -- the market is skyrocketing because companies, and "investors", believe you are going to get screwed longer, harder and more-frequently.

Unless you're a delusional idiot any hope of real change and real improvement for Americans and their lives being heralded by Trump is over.

Enjoy (or protest) the red meat; in terms of outcome it will have exactly as much impact on your life as a dog whistle, and if you're following it then you deserve the outcome when the food promised by said dog whistle is laced with cyanide.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2017-02-18 06:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 2094 references
[Comments enabled]  

Seriously?

I'm roaming right now, and what I see is, well, disturbing.

Man came from ape, right?  Sort of, anyway -- whether you think God did it or Darwin was responsible, the path is mostly the same.  We argue agency, not outcome.

But what the hell has happened to people in the last 50ish years?

People of WalMart is supposed to be a spoof.  It's not.

People I knew who I haven't seen in 20, 30 years -- my God what happened to you?

I find old pictures, and gaze at them.  We all get older, we get some lines to our faces, our hair is more-gray, and similar.  But gee, is that it?  No.  And both you and I know it.  And that's just the physical side of things.

We have a divided nation.  Half wants to kill the other half.  More than a few actually mean it; it's not a metaphor, it's a desire.

"Let it go"?  You can't be serious.

If the change comes slowly among those you hang out with you don't really recognize it.  If you walk into a scene you haven't been in for the last 20 years and see the change "all at once".... well....

"I need a drink -- or six -- now" was my initial thought.

The next thought?  Sell everything, buy some land away from all this crap, put up a block house, get some chickens and goats and **** it all.

Yeah.

What the hell has this nation turned into?  It may have happened more or less slowly, but it's happened.  Yes, there are normal people left.  But how many?  In big cities, where the population is centered?  Good luck.

You may know that there's a "dystopian" video floating around out there that basically says that the big cities turning into literal hell is not fiction, but inevitable.  It's a government video.  I would poo-poo it except.... I'm seeing it right now.

Oh my.

Prayer is not only inadequate, it's idiotic at this stage.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2017-02-12 06:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 1134 references
[Comments enabled]  

Looks awfully similar to 2008.

Rotation back and forth, with most of the gains coming in a handful of big names with big stories -- but no earnings to back them up.  Claims from the media, including most-notably CNBS, citing 2018 earnings projections that have built in 50% or more increases in earnings -- that have not happened yet -- to "justify" P/E ratios that today stand in the area of 40, 50, 100 or more on current earnings.  These same firms are themselves showing slower growth rates and increases in both spending on "new things" and decreasing margins, along with near-zero growth of customers in the United States.

In 2008 this was happening in banks and...... big tech.

Today it's happening (mostly) in big tech.  But those firms today are even further down the road (if they existed at all) than they were in 2008, and yet..... suddenly, we seem to have magically grown a few new continents for them to expand into (never mind that the revenue available from people in those places, thus far, appears to be near-zero on a per-person basis.)

The market always balances fear and greed; along with this nebulous thing called "liquidity" -- the availability of cheap credit to leverage forward results. What everyone intentionally refuses to consider is that leverage works both ways; it both amplifies profits and losses.  Every turn of the crank irretrievably impacts both in exactly the same amount.  If you buy back shares and reduce the float of your stock by 50% then your earnings are doubled on an EPS basis -- but when the worm turns and you take losses, the losses on an EPS basis are doubled as well.

Nobody believes there will be losses, you see, therefore there is no cost, no penalty, and no risk to turning the crank.

Uh huh.  Sure.

If you think firms like Netflix, Amazon, Facebook and similar are going to grow trees to the sky you're deluded.  Amazon managed to somehow nearly double SG&A expense this last quarter over the same quarter last year.  How did that actually happen and where was that expense from?  By the way, their sales did not double -- not even close. 

You can argue, if you'd like, that there's something special -- "water walking" of some sort -- by these firms.  There's not.  There is plenty of accounting gaming going on, but it's legal to do that within broad limits.  The onus is on you as an investor or trader to actually read said releases and figure out, if you can, what they're doing.  Like, for instance, exactly why Amazon's SG&A doubled -- from what section of their business are they hiding broken-out expenses to prevent you from evaluating, on a fair basis, what the forward profitability of that segment of the business is.....

I have considered banks uninvestable since before the crash.  The reason is simple: I cannot get my arms around their contingent liabilities because the law allows them to hide those liabilities to a degree that putting a number on them with any sort of accuracy is impossible.

You could forgive most of the people in the so-called "analyst" community in this regard up to a point.  You see, the world of ever-lower interest rates has been firmly in place since the 1980s.  That's driven better than half the gains in the markets since 1980 as a purely mathematical matter.  Without that the DOW would stand at 10,000 and the S&P at about 1200 today.

But how do you continue that pattern today when it's not possible to continue the ever-lower interest rate paradigm?  It's entirely possible that we could stall out here and never reverse -- that is, the 10 year Treasury could trade in a range of around 2.2-2.5% for decades.  It has before, and it might again.  But if it does that still doesn't help you expand leverage because you've already borrowed the money at the low rates of the last 10 years!

Note that firms like Netflix, with negative operating cash flow that has persisted through a period spanning yearsonly exist because of their ability to continue to turn that crank!

If that ability to disappears the firm is literally out of business because they have contracted to spend money over the next several years that they do not have, do not generate from operations and cannot raise -- this means their stock suddenly becomes worth zero.

It is not the absolute rate that determines which direction leverage goes it is the change in rate and direction of that change.  If there is no change then there is no change in the bias for leverage.  If rates rise then you wind up with a forced de-leveraging because any money borrowed not to be paid back but simply to be paid coupon upon cannot be held out -- either you pay back those loans or you default, and in a corporate environment that means the firm goes bankrupt and the stock value of said firm is zeroed.

When you look through the economy of today in the United States from 20,000' you find two things that stand out:

  • Forced extraction of money, often apparently in violation of black-letter felony law (e.g. 15 USC Ch 1), supported by either intentional refusal to prosecute or even government involvement in same.  Health care is the standout example, but not the only one. Forced "net neutrality" was one of them from the Obama era, and is the reason Netflix exists at the scale and pricing that it does in the US.  Anything that upsets that apple cart will detonate all the businesses dependent on it.

  • Ridiculous borrowing for uneconomic purposes such as stock buybacks and similar.  Borrowing funds is always dangerous.  It also, however, is sometimes a risk worth taking.  There is no such thing as life without risk.  The question is what's the risk, what's the reward, what's the timeline on that risk and what forward assumptions and their probabilities are you using to measure all three?  That last question, in the last 30 years and especially in the last six or seven has never been asked and expanded upon in public by any firm's public filings I've seen.

Finally, we appear to have a President that cares not for the boundaries of the Constitution when it comes to said extraction, nor will he enforce existing law.  The fact that Trump supports "civil forfeiture" is enough to disqualify him as a President standing alone.  That he has demonstrated no intention to act on medical monopolies is far worse, however, as while civil forfeiture is unlikely to impact you medical monopolies will, with near-certainty, impact either you or someone you love and care about at some point in your life.

You need only get into a car accident that you cannot foresee nor are at fault for to be victimized by this system even if only to a mild or moderate degree.  Your mother or father, or child need only get injured in a pure accident, such as by a snake bite to get rat****ed beyond words and face a quarter-million dollar charge they never consented to.  Unlike many of the injustices this one hoses nearly everyone at some point in their life and yet there is exactly zero outrage in the streets, state-houses or directed at the cops and other law enforcement agencies over any of it.

It was obvious to me in 1997 that the stock market was going to crash and the pets.com wonderkind would be zeros.  What people cite as "different" today is that firms like Facebook and Amazon have "actual earnings."  Well, perhaps, but that just changes whether the bottom number for their price is zero, or some small number over zero.  That you have a functional business that actually does generate something beyond what you spend doesn't make your 2% operating margin delivering goods, and what is rapidly trending toward a commodity-style 10% operating margin delivering services, worth the near-200 times earnings your stock sells for today on the premise that you can manage to hold 50% service margins along with the necessary companion expectation that sales volume will expand by a factor of 10.

Last time around the stupidity centered on the premise that the S-1 filings claimed somewhere north of 10x Global GDP for "expected outcomes" -- a radically stupid proposition that should have met with exactly zero willing buyers in the market.

This time around it centers on equally-stupid premises -- such as the idea that AWS is a $200 billion a year business operating at a 50% margin -- a pair of assumptions that together mean (1) there will be no competitors and (2) there will be no corporate data centers.  Either one of those presumptions standing alone is laughable.  Together they are hucksterism far worse than anything P.T. Barnum ever cooked up.

This sort of "analysis" by Wall Street and their willing mouthpieces in the media ought to be good for felony indictments because they are claims that have a statistical probability of occurrence less-likely than an asteroid hit on the White House in the next 72 hours.

Yet just as was the case in 2000, and in 2008, exactly nobody will face any sort of sanction for any of it -- just as nobody has for nearly 40 years in the medical industry for violating 100+ year old law.

You, on the other hand, will pay the price -- just as you will for the medical monopolies -- because we, the people refuse to demand that it change now and that this crap be put to a stop.

As for exactly when the roof will fall on your head, that's unknowable.  Every time it happens someone calls it right, but hundreds, even thousands of people call it wrong, and usually the person who called it right got it wrong previously for the same event.  The underlying cause of 2008 was clearly visible early in 2007, yet the insanity went on (and the market continued to rise) for more than 18 months.  In 2000 the insanity was clearly visible in 1997, I exited in 1998, and yet from the point that "this is stupid" was obvious until it blew was close to three years -- and well more than a double in the Nasdaq later.

I have utterly no remorse, however, over sitting out the "last burst" of run-up in either case -- because the odds are nearly 100% that you won't get the call on the exact time right to exit, and you risk far more than you can make by trying to do so -- or even worse you wind up second guessing on what you think is a "dip to be bought" and finding out that what you just walked into with your money is an elevator shaft on the 100th floor -- with no car. 

The math is never wrong.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2017-02-10 10:19 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 1482 references
[Comments enabled]  

This may be in the context of immigration, but it speaks to the broader point:

The writer, Brookings fellow and Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes, had noted the order skipped over a key part of the U.S. code on “inadmissible aliens” which Trump had publicly recited on Wednesday in defense of his immigration restrictions.

The statute reads in part: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The claim is correct; this is the actual cite: (read it for yourself at the link!)

(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

The law makes clear that the President has essentially unquestionable authority to restrict entry of immigrants by mere proclamation for any amount of time he or she deems appropriate. There is no provision for that decision to be reviewable by a court; the only redress is political (via impeachment.)

The opinion claims that there is no such thing as "unreviewable" decisions when it comes to constitutionality.  That's true but intentionally misleading.  The Congress and Constitution delegate certain powers to certain places.  A clear act beyond the delegated power is, of course, reviewable whether it is claimed to be or not.

But in this case the statute has been on the books for decades (the 1950s, to be exact) and has been used in this exact context by a huge number of previous Presidents -- including Obama.  In fact when Obama suspended all immigration from Iraq he did so on this exact basis and with this exact statutory authority.  When Jimmy Carter suspended all immigration from Iran he did so on the same basis, with the same authority and did not have to, nor did he even attempt to show that the suspension was due to threats of terrorism.  In fact Carter's suspension was a purely punitive act aimed at Iran for the actions some of their people took on their own soil.  Yes, those actions were aimed at the United States (the taking of hostages in our embassy) but they took place there, not here. Nonetheless that action was both lawful and constitutional.

The court didn't even cite the statute that Trump used to issue his executive order.  It instead tried to use a section of the Immigration code that bears on numerical immigration targets which specifies that in that context you may not discriminate on a number of bases -- nationality being one of them.  The problem is that Trump's order doesn't bear on that section of US Immigration Law at all; it instead relies on the lawful authority of the Executive to suspend immigration from any class of persons when it is, in the opinion of the Executive, in the national interest to do so.  The facts are that Obama took the same action against Iraqi immigrants for the same reason and that the same security concerns have continued to occur since, including a documented incident where two arrests were made early last year.

Folks, you may agree or disagree with the action Trump took.  This Ticker isn't about that.

It's about the willful, intentional and unconstitutional acts of the 9th Circuit that continue a long tradition in the US Court system of acting as if controlling law, including the Constitution, does not exist whenever it suits some particular group of people.

Any government body that does such a thing by accident must be called out.  If it was an accident then said body will immediately correct its mistake.

Any government body that does such a thing through evidenced intent must be disbanded and removed from power.  If it is not, when such a means exists (and it certainly does, as the Constitution gives the power to Congress to disband or reorganize any part of the court system; the only Constitutionally-required court is the Supreme Court) then all such co-conspiring components of the government have declared themselves illegitimate.

~240 years ago our nation went to war over this exact issue and the extraction -- otherwise called "theft" -- that was taking place upon the citizens as a result.

Today we have the same thing going on but at an even larger scale and with far more injury than was the case 240 years ago.

We have, in this instance, a court that has stated a factual lie as the basis of its deliberation -- that no "immigrant" from the named nations has been arrested or linked to terrorism.  That's a damned and knowing lie; in point of fact there have been many such arrests and most of those arrested have either been convicted or are still awaiting trial.  In fact Obama suspended immigration from one of those nations for this exact reason after we caught "immigrants" here plotting an attack.  The judges of the 9th Circus deliberately lied to both the public and arguing counsel prior to issuing their "decision", and it was upon this lie that their decision was predicated.  As just one example of more than a dozen over the last two years two Iraqi-born individuals who came here as refugees were arrested last year.  I remind you that Iraq is one of the nations on the list.

Trump's order for the purpose of evaluating the means by which those people got into the country and to take whatever corrective actions are necessary to prevent repeats is not only logical it's legal under the authority delegated to him by Congress and expressed in US Code. That the 9th Circus deliberately ignored the clear text of that section of law because they didn't like it and instead selected a section of law that does not bear on the issue is not "interpreting the law", it is literally blacking out the sections of law they do not like, which is not within their Constitutional power -- only Congress can do that through repealing said law.

It is this very same willful and intentional refusal to follow the law that has led to the issues with our health care system.  The law, which not only exists in statute it has been tested at the US Supreme Court says that monopolies and similar acts in restraint of trade are not only unlawful civilly in many cases they are criminal felonies.  This was tested in 1979 when insurance companies tried to claim an exemption under Mccarran-Ferguson, which is also law, and they lost.

That's supposed to be the end of the discussion until and unless Congress passes something to change the state of said law.

Congress has not done so.

The courts, along with the Executive, however, have refused to enforce said law, just as they have done here with Trump's order.

The result is that a $40,000 hospital bill comes with a more than $38,000 "discount" if you have a certain kind of "insurance."  Such a pricing disparity is clear evidence of collusive intent to restrain trade and tie sales unlawfully, that is, to compel you to purchase something you do not want by threatening to bankrupt you if you don't have it.

That's illegal folks.

Either the law applies to everyone or it applies to nobody.  If the latter then there is no law that should be respected by anyone.

Do you want to live in such a nation?  You do, right here, right now, today.  You are being financially raped on a daily basis in exactly this fashion.  Those of you on the left cheering for the 9th Circuit order are cheering for your own financial rape, destruction and ultimately your own death at the very hands of those same people.

Health care is simply one aspect of this abuse -- yet it is a very large one, spanning close to 20% of our entire economy.  There are others.  "Net neutrality" means that if you don't want to buy Netflix service you still pay for it in your Internet service because Hastings managed to force carriers to pay the majority of his transport costs.  That's nice if you want to use Netflix but if you don't then it's a tax leveled on you and given to the company!  That's theft at literal gunpoint.

I can cite literally dozens of additional examples, all of which wind up screwing you.

And while there will be plenty of "I told you sos" if there is a terrorist incident originating from one of these rapefugees the fact of the matter is that the underlying issue is both far more grave and pervasive than whether a few nations have entry of their nationals into the US curtailed until we can verify that the credentials they have actually represent who they are.

The underlying issue is literally the difference between a Constitutional government and a firearm-toting mob that takes whatever it wants, including your life, whenever it wants.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
2016: What Was And a Preview of 2017

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 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.