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 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.
Let that sink in folks.
Do you really think these "vaccines" are about a disease?
They are not.
Do you really think getting jabbed will "let you return to normal life"? It will not.
Do you think there is no risk to going back every five or six months to do it again? You're wrong.
What is this really about?
Why don't you take a look at this? As I pointed out back after the 2008 crash and the so-called "Obama recovery" there never was an actual recovery at all. Up until that point we had an upward slope with plenty of flat spaces. Then, coming out of the 2008 collapse we had an accelerating curve which was all credit creation -- not economic expansion. This was directly tied into Obamacare and forcing more money out of your pocket for the benefit of Hospitals and Pharma, which was the real trigger for the 2008 collapse in the first place; they ran out of the ability to extort people.
Why were hospitals given cash bonuses from Medicare and Medicaid if you had Covid? It wasn't because whatever was wrong with you wasn't otherwise paid for. Nope -- it was because the medical monster was threatening to topple over once again, as it did in 2008.
What did we do this time?
The same thing except that this inevitably reflects back into prices, because it must.
If there is $1,000 in existence, 1,000 bushels of corn and that's all there is the clearing price between the two will be about a buck, more or less. Now double the number of dollars in existence but keep the same amount of corn and what do you think the price per bushel will be?
When we pulled this bull**** the last time, after WWII, we got nasty inflation in the 1970s and early 80s. That forced the second adult in the home to go to work where they formerly stayed home and raised the kids, usually the woman.
Well, we already used that up, didn't we?
What else did we get out of that? Destroyed families, especially black families, because she got more money if she threw the guy out and that means the kids had no father, nor anyone else around for half the day. Gee, that gang sounds like a decent idea once they get to be about 12, right? We caused this folks -- directly -- with money-printing.
The median household income in Chicago is about $57,000. There are a lot of people making $200,000+ in that town; they either live in the nice high-rise condos or somewhere on the North Shore. This means there are a lot of households making $30,000 or less and every adult that lives there is working, barely getting by. Take the equivalent of $10,000 of their money away through an increased cost of living at the grocery store, gas station, property tax, parking fees and all other manner of bull**** and they can't pay the electric, gas bill to heat the place or the property taxes.
You can't "give" them yet more handouts because if you do that immediately reflects back into even more increased price and makes the problem worse. What do you see right now? Plenty of people who won't do hard work for a modest wage because they're better off sitting at home collecting unemployment and they can't stay ahead of their cost of living anyway.
What was Covid really about?
Attempting to force you into a subscription model for "health care" where you have to spend money every six months, like it or not, on a permanent basis where the companies making the "thing" have no obligation to not continually raise price, and they will. Worse, they've intentionally designed these "vaccines" to be an inferior match against natural infection, something never before allowed to be used in humans because it is dangerous and we know it is dangerous and resulted in disaster among animal husbandry. Look at Moderna's stock price, look up the patents and who's name is on some of them and then contemplate why it is that you let both the corporate and government people involved in this bull**** go home and sleep well every night after stealing all your money and your health.
The people attempting this, every one of them, need to go to prison now because if they don't do that here, now and today we're going to get a breakdown of the social order, every single cop's house will become uninsurable because if there's a cop car parked in front of it Burn, Loot and Murder will toss a can of gasoline through the window and there will be nothing left of American society nor your precious stock market. You think not -- or you can blow this off and it will all be ok? Well then come up with a scenario under which the bottom third of America can pay their bills at a 30% higher cost of living -- and it can't involve more money-printing by the government because that not only doesn't work it makes the problem worse.
You were threatened with death to get your compliance when in point of fact it was sitting around with one hand playing with yourself while the other shoveled cheap, fast carbohydrates in you piehole for 10+ years that caused you to be susceptible to death from this virus in the first place. Absent that you would almost never have a serious course of disease; you'd cough or sneeze a bit and that's it.
And oh, by the way, if you think China isn't cooking up (if they haven't already) another version of this thing that really is wildly more-lethal and ignores the current vaccines or even attacks you much more-seriously if you got jabbed you're certifiably insane.
They were working with exactly that sort of virus over in Wuhan and Fauci was funding it; what leads you to believe there was only one? You are really a special brand of stupid and deserve to die if you think they only did it once; why do you think we built two atomic bombs for Japan? That's a fact and we'd better make damn sure that said "second round" does not exist and everyone who was involved in Round 1, which includes both Fauci and his wife who, I remind you, is the chair of bioethics at the NIH and thus had both the capacity and duty to throw a flag on this bull**** goes straight to PMITA prison at best with a clear warning to Xina that if that **** gets out irrespective of how Beijing and every other Chinese city of over 1 million population gets reduced to ash in 15 minutes or less.
The science is that infection confers durable immunity. Permanent, no, but again who cares if you sneeze? We only care if we get seriously ill. The literature documents that infection is similar to or better than vaccines. In addition we know cross-reactivity does exist with some other virus, probably other coronaviruses, and we've known this since the spring of 2020. That is, many people have existing protection which may be why even among the seriously morbid most people get a mild or no disease course. As I pointed out months ago the grandfather of a good friend of mine was killed by Covid-19; his wife, with whom he obviously resided and who had a similar morbidity profile to him did not even sneeze but was confirmed positive. Obviously she had some source of existing resistance or she'd have gotten hammered -- but didn't.
If you're a young person and some college is trying to coerce you into a permanent subscription model for this crap you might want to rethink whether you're learning anything more than becoming a ****ing sheep and branding yourself as permanently unemployable both medically and intellectually. Think that's bull****? It's not. Wake the hell up or your best and highest calling in life will be as a gang member just a few years down the road. Maybe you should tell said Provost to cut that crap out or you will plant that ivory tower up his or her ass! What your University Provost should have done when this bug started and we knew young people were very rarely harmed was throw keggers every Friday night with the college providing the beer; **** the 21-and-over drinking laws. You got a college student ID, come on in. While in the average large university this would have led to a couple of deaths statistically you were far more-likely to die from alcohol poisoning at the party than from Covid-19 and the entire campus would have had immunity by the end of the spring term in 2020. Let the scared old fat and worthless faculty "teach from home" or wear a P100 on campus if they choose; hell, all they do these days is send their young and healthy TAs in to do the lectures yet the college expects you to pay full price to sit in a hall and listen to some Indian dude who speaks broken English -- if you're lucky you can understand him well enough to not fail the class.
Leaving aside the health response, which has been to suppress working treatments and tell people to stay home until they're choking, which is an outrageous act of malfeasance bordering on mass-manslaughter the so-called "solution" put forward is a many tens of billions of dollars per year permanent increase in health spending -- right up your ass and on a permanent basis, forevermore into the future and when, not if, the risks of that show up you're very unlikely to approve of them -- that is, if you survive long enough to still have an opinion.
Nor did the stupid stop with medicine; we have at the same time screwed every landlord in the nation by blocking evictions for not paying rent while we hand out $600/wk checks to anyone unemployed so they can get stoned instead of going to work.
In other words rather than tell people to make individual choices about risk and reward while neither shutting down or mandating anything at all we have instead put evolutionary pressure on the virus to make it more transmissible, intentionally making the problem worse.
Where do you think those variants came from? The places testing leaky vaccines.
That's called evolution, *******s! You know, what goes on every single damned day and has for millions of years?
And to paper over all of it we've devalued the currency by 25% which will inevitably show up in prices.
If this is not stopped it will inevitably result in the destruction of about 30% of the American public's ability to survive as there is no more buffer to absorb such a structural change as there was in the 1970s and when that third of the population cannot survive it will seek to do so by eating the other 2/3rds.
The problem is, as I've documented for more than ten years in these pages and in Leverage, centered in "health care."
The only solution is to frog-march a random Hospital administrator and a Pharma executive straight into prison on a 15 USC Chapter 1 indictment tomorrow and then do it again every single day until that industry cuts the bull**** out at all levels returning competition to the provision of health care on an unrestricted basis and by doing so dropping the cost by 80%, which would happen immediately.
Doing so is the only way to avoid what is otherwise coming folks and no, we will not get to 2024 either.
The Democrats already know this which is why they're pulling all manner of insane crap right here and now including with the Supreme Court. They know damn well the lid is likely to come off this pressure cooker before the midterm elections and it is both parties, including Trump personally, who along with each and every one of us who caused it and let it happen this time around.
Burn, Loot and Murder are gassing up the bottles, I suspect.
I've not watched the entire trial thus far, but have seen a decent part of it. It hasn't gone well for the prosecution.
Normally what you see in a trial that is headed for a guilty verdict is a prosecution case that has few to no real holes blown in it. Then the defense gets its turn and tries to salvage what is a pretty nasty set of facts established in court.
That's not what's going on this time around, and it bodes ill for those expecting a conviction.
Just as a reminder you don't have to win "by weight of the evidence" in a criminal trial; you have to win beyond a reasonable doubt.
You can kill a man who is about to die anyway and it's still murder but to be found guilty you have to be the actual agent of the death, even if only a few minutes before it would have otherwise happened. You can't just be there and dereliction of duty isn't murder either. Indeed with few exceptions (e.g. under admiralty law) that's not even manslaughter, and civil money in settlement has already been paid.
Of course I cannot predict how the threat to burn cities to the ground plays into the jury's mind, especially when its reinforced with a riot right in the middle of the trial when another black man, this one wanted on open warrants, gets shot after attempting to flee. It's not supposed to matter but we live in reality, not fantasyland, and anyone who thinks that's not something they're contemplating has rocks in their head. We also have no idea what the defense is going to put on for a case, because we haven't seen it yet.
As for the newest shooting that's as much of a cluster**** as I've seen in a good long while. The cops originally claimed it was an "accidental" shooting, in that the officer drew a gun while intending to draw a taser. Well, there is no such thing as an "accidental" shooting unless the gun malfunctions, which it did not. If you draw something other than you intend that's negligence, not an accident. If you fire, that is, you press the trigger when you should not, that is also negligence. Whether the person in question who got shot was reasonably shot under the circumstances ceases to be the question once it is admitted that the discharge of the firearm was not intended. This is something anyone who has ever carried a weapon knows. What sort of stupid **** is going on up there in Minnesota when it comes to the cops?
But back to the Chauvin trial: Perhaps the most-damning of all when it comes to reasonable doubt is Floyd's "friend" and apparently dope dealer refusing to testify, invoking his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. He has every right to do that, but it's problematic for the prosecution in a big way. His claim: He might wind up charged with murder. Wait, what? How can that happen unless he is concerned he might have killed the guy with the dope he supplied him?
Again, the defense does not have to prove that happened; they only need establish that it might have.
What's the threshold on percentages? That's up to the jury, when you get down to it, but there is a fair bit of agreement. It cannot be purely speculative; there must be either some set of evidence or lack of evidence.
A refusal to testify because one is concerned they may implicate themselves in the death as the causative factor is an example of something that meets the test, and that's not the only piece of evidence in question. It just happens to be one of those ugly little fact patterns that has developed in this specific case.
We shall see how the remainder unfolds but my handicapping of things at this point is that the prosecution is not having a good time of it.
It is yet to be determined how bad this might get, but it could get very, very bad.
This risk is real and its universal with all the Covid "vaccines" currently being produced and in trials in the US. Worse, we relied on the RNA and protein data directly from China without independent validation via Koch's postulate and our own isolation and purification of the virus itself. Today, as you read this, that isolation, purification and confirmation via Koch's postulate in the United States has not been done.
If you choose to accept that risk because, in your sole opinion, the risk is higher if you get The Coof than from taking this sort of vaccine, have at it. It is my considered opinion that for virtually everyone under the age of 60, and almost without exception anyone under the age of 25 or 30 that's a very bad bet with the odds spread being nearly 100:1 against you.
Remember, if this bet is lost there is no hiding if you took any of these vaccines. ADE-initiated harm is extremely likely to kill; in trials when it has shown up it has been nearly 100% fatal to the animals under test. This, by the way, is why I consider coercion by any person toward anyone to force them to take such a shot to be justification for a "Hannibal" style response out of said victim or (if they expire) their family members.
But I want to focus today on a very important distinction between the three common EUA'd vaccines today and a couple that may show up later this year (NOT AstraZeneca's; that's the same basic technology as J&J.) The J&J (viral vector) and two mRNA vaccines are all parlor tricks and IMHO extraordinarily dangerous.
While mRNA and viral vector vaccines use different techniques they all suffer from the same fatal flaw; they trick your body into producing the spike protein by infecting your cells. The literature on these vaccines states that the injection into your arm causes your arm muscle to produce these proteins. This is a lie by omission; your muscle tissue of course is vascularized, that is, it is very highly perfused with blood flow and thus anything injected into a muscle inevitably circulates in volume through your entire body. Said "instructions" are thus inevitably taken up by cells throughout your body until the dose is exhausted. The instructions delivered cannot replicate but their distribution into your body is not limited to the muscle of your arm and implying that is flat-out bull****.
The problem is that when the tricked cells produce the spike protein and thus your immune system identifies them as "defective and dangerous" it now attacks the cells. This raises the potential for a serious or even permanent autoimmune problem; autoimmune disorders arise when your immune system goes haywire, declares your own body's cells harmful and attacks them. Exactly why that happens is poorly understood but hijacking one's own body cells intentionally to produce a protein that you intend to be identified as dangerous and thus provoke an antibody response, on the basics of biology, appears to be criminally stupid.
In addition the potential for serious direct damage in very bad places exists because, as noted, there is no way to confine the injection to the muscle tissue. This is almost-certainly why there is a history of blood clotting disorders and similar showing up in some persons who get these vaccines given that the virus itself, when it kills, almost always does so via thrombosis (clotting); if the epithelium of the blood vessels winds up getting some of these instructions it is not at all difficult to understand how that can produce clotting right there when the cells becomes infested and the body reacts to it. To be clear: That can kill you outright or do permanent harm, especially if it occurs in cardiovascular blood vessels.
The other vaccines under trial right now in the US use a more-traditional approach. They instead grow the spike protein in something else; typically in an animal of some sort via a virus that can reproduce in said animal host. That component is then isolated, mixed with an adjuvant (a drug that promotes immune sensitivity) and directly injected.
Notice the difference: Your body cells are not hijacked to produce anything; instead the desired antigen is directly introduced into the body. This is basically the same process used to make many other vaccines including the seasonal injection for influenza.
Those vaccines still can and do produce severe trouble in certain people but it is usually the adjuvant that is actually responsible because those adjuvants are typically required in order to get a sufficient immune system reaction. However, the specific risk of hijacking your cellular metabolism which cannot be localized to your arm muscle is absent.
Note that potential "attack vector" for a foreign adversary still exists because as with the other vaccines they are still only using the spike protein and not the rest of the virus, so the potential to target a bioweapon at someone who has that unique, never seen in nature antibody pattern remains. Until and unless a whole, killed virus vaccine reaches the United States there is no way around that risk if you accept a Covid vaccine. How large that risk is remains a complete unknown; you can bet our adversaries are attempting to come up with such a virus, but whether they will succeed cannot be determined; we will find out only if they do succeed and vaccinated people start dying in large numbers.
In addition note that historically the reason whole, killed virus is not used for coronaviruses is that animal trials have repeatedly produced evasion by natural mutation and ADE. It is for this reason that everyone has focused on using "only part" of the viral protein complex. It may well prove up over time that exactly zero of these vaccines are safe for this reason; we do not know because we did not do the work. You are the cat or ferret in the coronavirus vaccine trial, basically -- and in previous attempts they all died.
Finally let's talk about absolute risk. During the trials only 1% of the control group got the virus. That is while they like to tout "95% effective" that's wildly dishonest since the base risk during the trial period for an unvaccinated person to get the virus was only 1%. Therefore the maximum absolute risk reduction possible was one percent. This is, of course, never discussed.
But in terms of relative risk these later-to-the-party offerings are very likely to be much less dangerous. I would not be surprised at all to see that they have the same sort of serious side effect profile as the flu vaccine since they are basically the same technology.
In other words in the fullness of time I fully expect it to be proved that speed will have killed, and while for seriously-morbid older people the risk of using these "first" formulas" may well have been worth it this is almost-certainly not true for those under the age of 60 or thereabouts and, with extremely rare exceptions, basically never a good bet for those under 30.
God “does not and cannot bless sin: He blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him,” it said.
The left went insane within seconds, of course.
But -- the Church is not bound by the left, nor does it care. That's a feature, not a bug incidentally.
I have my quarrels with the Church but what you cannot argue with is that religions have the absolute right to choose who enters into their sacraments and on what terms. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not. By definition faith cannot be proved, and what you can prove is not faith.
If you believe in the Catholic doctrine on marriage then there is no way to wordsmith your way into a "Catholic gay wedding." It can't be done; to do so is to deny that which the Catholic Church believes.
You can bless and respect a person, but not an act that is held to be a sin.
Under Catholic doctrine we are all sinners, intentionally so. We all do things that we know are in fact sins. Whether through inattention or malice doesn't really change much, since in point of fact as adults we're all responsible for paying attention, and if thus the willful refusal or failure to do so is equally chargeable as to intent.
Disagree with the Church if you'd like, but religion is not logical. By definition it requires that one take on faith what one cannot prove. Science has no answer in these matters, and never will.
Yet in many cases the most-logical of all are also religious.
Because for each answer we find there is another question, and we always run out of answers. Believe in the "Big Bang" all you'd like, but tell me -- where did all that matter come from? If you believe it's a cycle, what started it? If you believe it's a one-off and the universe is inexorably headed toward heat death how did it happen in the first place?
At some point you wind up with "I don't know."
No, you can't cancel Catholicism because it doesn't hew to your particular desires. Oh, you can try, but you will fail.
As you should.
Hindman: Americans know they need to plan for their later years and get their affairs in order, especially as retirement approaches. But while people recognize that need, too many aren’t following through and taking action.
When someone passes without a will, it means they have died “intestate” – meaning the intestacy laws of the state where they reside will determine how the property is distributed upon your death. But without clear direction on how you would like critical items like financial assets, property, personal possessions and items of emotional value distributed among loved ones, confusion and disarray are a common end result. Not only does the lack of a will create turmoil and headaches – both financial and emotional – for family members; it heightens the risk that your end-of-life preferences won’t be carried out in accordance with your wishes. On the other hand, a well-prepared legacy can give you the simple and satisfying peace of mind of knowing that you’ve done what you can to organize your life, shape your legacy and leave your family with a roadmap of your preferences. It can be one of the greatest final gifts we leave to those we love.
Yes, you should have your affairs in order.
But I really dislike self-interested jackasses peddling crap -- and this falls into that category.
First, there are plenty of people who need no Will at all. If you have little or nothing in terms of assets, or intend to die broke and have no minor children then a Will is not only a waste of time it is functionally worthless. In fact in that situation whoever you name as Executor (Personal Representative in some states) would be five-alarm stupid to accept the job and file the Will with the courts because there's nothing to get but once you file there are both costs and responsibilities. In other words if you know you will either die broke or in the hole and have no minor children then save the money.
You should still have a durable power of attorney and advance directive; those are to some extent state-specific depending on where you live, in an attempt to have what you want to happen actually happen when it comes to you being flat on your back and unable to make decisions. Make damn sure said advance directive is on file with all the hospitals and other places you might be taken if you collapse without warning; until said place has it and knows they have it they'll do whatever the hell they want and maybe, but not necessarily, whatever someone who identifies as one of your next-of-kin wants. If this isn't what you want it's bad news and the cost of that, if any, will wind up billed to your estate which your estate will be obligated to pay. So if you do only one thing make it that advance directive and put it on file at all the local hospitals.
Warning: Some people will tell you to put someone else on your accounts. If you are offered this, to be a "second signer" or "co-owner" do not accept unless you are that person's spouse, in which case it is (of course) perfectly ok. The reason to refuse is that if they do something stupid you are fully responsible legally and financially, and this can ruin you instantly. Consider someone who has brokerage account and is short at the margin limit of a company that gets taken out and the stock doubles. They will come after your house! Don't do it.
A power of attorney gives you the ability to take care of business while the other person is alive without that risk and is the correct instrument; there are several forms of that from very limited ones for a specific asset or account and specific directives all the way to a general durable power of attorney that is extremely broad and essentially gives the person who holds it the same rights as the principal. Just be aware it turns into a pumpkin instantly upon the principal's death and if you are holding one it is a civil and in some cases criminal offense to self-deal or otherwise screw the principal who gave it to you.
If you have or expect to have assets, or in the instance where you have minor children then a Will is appropriate. Just understand its limitations and do it the right way to minimize them.
Specifically, get anything worthwhile out of the Will and thus out of probate. This will make your heirs happier as it's faster, cheaper and has a near-perfect capability to have happen exactly what you wish so long as that's legal.
The first thing to consider is that for anything that doesn't trigger gift tax issues (e.g. things worth under $14,000 in total to a single person, but perhaps of immense sentimental value) give it to the people who you want to have it while you're still alive -- but before you're on your deathbed. This is very unlikely to be challenged and if it is the person challenging it will be forced to spend money on a legal case with no monetary reward.
When you die with or without a Will but with some assets subject to probate then "someone" has to file with the probate court. If you do not have a Will then whatever is subject to probate is distributed based on state law; there's a table they go down (e.g. "spouse first, then any direct descendant children, then ..... and on and on until the category fills.) A Will overrides this to any extent you wish and nominates one or more people (in a chain, if the first refuses or is dead, etc) to be the Personal Representative (or "Executor" in some states; same thing, different names depending on the state.)
However, as soon as that Will is filed with someone named as Personal Representative (assuming the designation of either as valid is not contested, and it can be if someone wants to), or Probate is open "intestate" (with no Will) the fees start. Filing and publication fees are typically in the many hundred dollar range right up front. Unless that person both lives locally and can and will keep their act together sufficiently to deal with the court on a routine basis then there will also be legal fees involved. Most people will either want or need at least legal consultation in doing this job; if you have a law office do it "end to end" for you (which is also an option) the cost is going to double or more. The cost of this process in dollar terms is almost-always well north of a thousand dollars simply in court fees alone by the time it's all said and done; with lawyers involved it only takes one that's a bit of a snake to run the bill through the roof since all time is billed hourly. Choose wisely and ask lots of questions!
Further, and much worse in many cases than the money hit is the fact that once Probate is opened there are statutory time windows that amount to a virtual standstill in terms of anything being paid out or distributed and similar. The reason for this is that all states have a "Bar Date" for claims; 3 or 4 months is common and the clock does not start running until Probate is filed and published. A company or person with a financial claim on the estate has that long to file their claim; if the Personal Representative pays out anything beyond funeral and ordinary maintenance costs (e.g. utility bills on a house, etc) and there are insufficient funds to cover claims he or she can be held personally responsible for those debts! Therefore the usual (and good) advice is distribute nothing until the bar date passes so you know exactly how much is left. If the Personal Representative is comfortable enough with the decedent's debt profile (usually only true if you were running that person's money for a couple of years prior to their death) then some distribution can be made sooner, especially of things that have little financial but lots of sentimental value (various bits and pieces of personal property, etc.) One thing to be very conscious of is anything on a lease; this most-often comes up with cars but it can be anything (e.g. an apartment!) Death does not void a lease in nearly all cases and the firm or person the decedent took it from can and usually will try to collect the entire remaining balance of payments. That can be a literal crap-ton of money and is quite capable of turning a modest estate into a smoking hole with negative value.
Next up is that most states assess an inventory fee on estates -- which amounts to a tax. That's usually assessed on the net value of assets on the day of death. Some assess straight-up taxes as well. There is also a potential federal estate tax issue but that doesn't hit most people as the limit is quite high ($11.4 million at present); if you're in that bracket then you're a 5-alarm idiot if you don't already have professional legal advice to deal with it in advance with some sort of bypass trust. There are ways to defray that tax and in some cases completely avoid it but that has to be done well in advance, so if you're that wealthy head thee to a good estate planning attorney pronto.
Note that if you do not file probate on an estate then there is still a statute of limitations on debts -- typically two years, but in some states it can be materially longer. In other words if there are debts then it's to advantage to bar any who don't pay attention by filing Probate -- but only if there are assets to pay the debts with and, when that's done, something will be left! Otherwise the correct action is to walk away and let the creditors pound sand; that you're named in a Will does not mean you're obligated until and unless you accept the appointment. Figure out if it's worth it (there will be something left, in your best estimation, and whatever you'll receive is enough to be worth your trouble) before you file!
IMHO, assuming no minor children, your goal while alive should be to make it not worth it to Probate the Estate even if there are assets and by doing so deny both the lawyers and the courts their fees.
Many times this can be done.
First, financial accounts of various sorts can for zero cost have what is known as "POD" put on them. That's payable on death and it's exactly what the name implies. You designate who gets what percentage and it's a simple form you fill out at the bank or brokerage. If you die your heirs need only present a death certificate, which they can usually obtain within a week or your passing, and the money is theirs -- period. A cashier's check is cut and that's the end of it. Likewise life insurance policies should always name specific beneficiaries and not your Estate. If you have modest debts -- such as a credit card for ordinary monthly expenses -- and someone you trust to pay it when you die then POD them an account specifically for that purpose with just enough in it for that to happen. They pay the debts after you pass with that money and that's the end of it.
Second, if you have Real Estate and it's owned and has a positive equity then the superior means of dealing with it is usually a Revocable Living Trust. It costs money to set one up if you use a lawyer (typically a couple of thousand) and it's state specific as is a Will but only at initiation. Once established it remains valid even if you move to a new state. The only thing to be careful of is the potential for state tax considerations in states that have a death or income tax. If you live in such a state and intend to move to a state where such is not the case move first, then set it up in the new state. If you already have a trust in a hostile tax environment state then revoke it, transfer the assets out once you move and set up a new trust in the "friendly" state, transferring them into the new one. A trust, once set up, must be funded by having the assets transferred into it. In other words for a house you re-title the house into the Trust. There are people who claim that a trust "hides" ownership -- this is not really true unless you name someone else as Trustee to manage it, which is very dangerous and for most people should be done, because title has to vest in a person; thus it's something like "Karl Denninger as Trustee for blah-blah Trust of date-set-up." But, since the Trust document itself is private who's named as a beneficiary is not disclosed and the Trust is not filed with a court after you die. In the trust documents you name a successor trustee who is the person (or chain of persons) who obtains control of the trust after you die. You can designate pretty much anything that's legal which you want done in a Trust. Revocable living trusts can be modified at-will including assets being moved into and out of them during your life, you can change beneficiaries, etc. Note that a revocable living trust does not provide any sort of tax protection since you maintain control over the assets until your death, at which point it becomes irrevocable and cannot be changed.
Trusts can also have financial accounts re-titled into them and that's frequently done if, for example, you have minor children and a fair bit of money -- or adult children you don't want to have get all the cash at once. Thus the term "Trust Fund Babies"; if there's plenty of money you may be perfectly ok with having a law firm named as the successor trustee to carry it out when you get hit by a bus since you don't care about the fees and costs. For most people designating the chain of heirs is sufficient, but once you get into high net worth situations you may make a different choice.
Note that in most cases you do not want to title vehicles into a trust; the reason is that in many states it is difficult to obtain insurance on them. They're one of the few things you should basically never put in a revocable trust, unless it's something like a classic car collection.
Along with the Trust you usually want what is called a "pour over" Will, which simply states that anything not in the trust and otherwise undisposed goes into the Trust on your death. Note that the Will still has to be probated; if it's a "small estate" this is cheap and fast but the entire point of using the Trust and POD in the first place is to avoid the cost and hassle of formal probate -- if you don't re-title things properly you spent the time and trouble (never mind money if a lawyer was involved) to set the trust up fro nothing since the pour-over Will still have to be probated!
The key difference with a Trust is that just like a POD on a financial account it doesn't go through probate; the court never gets their hands on it and thus there are no delays or fees assessed by same. This means the heirs get possession and control literally as soon as you die, which makes things a lot simpler. In addition nobody has access to your list of who gets what other than the trustee; unlike a Will which is filed with the court and becomes public a Trust does not.
Consider that if you have all your assets covered by a Will -- a house, a bank account, maybe a brokerage account -- and you die, until someone files that Will and is named Personal Representative how does the power bill get paid at the house? Your bank account is locked on the day of your death and a power of attorney to access that account becomes worthless. Someone is going to have to fork up their money to take care of that until the Will can be put into probate and Estate accounts set up and financial accounts transferred or liquidated, all of which costs time and money. In addition there's a very clean argument that nobody has the right of possession (e.g. to live there!) in said house at the moment of your death until Probate is established and on the day the Probate Court appoints the Personal Representative that person immediately has a fiduciary duty to preserve the value of same for the benefit of all the heirs. This can easily conflict with reality; let's say you have someone living in the house who is a partial heir but is a drug user and might trash the place or interfere with the sale required since no heir has the means or desire to buy out the others; the PR can, if the house isn't to pass solely to said person, have a legal duty to forcibly evict them no matter who it is and no matter what else is in the Will as their duty is to protect the Estate assets for the benefit of all the heirs (not just the person living there) and that duty is not to the dead person it's to the court!
If the bank account is POD'd to your heirs in some percentage distribution and the house is in a Trust that specifies that "X" has a right of possession then you immediately (within a couple of days) have the funds to pay the power bill and whoever is so-designated has the rights set forth in the Trust document no matter whether it's to the benefit of the asset -- or the rest of the estate -- or not. In other words your desires before your death are continued exactly after your death and as long as whatever you put in that document is legal it's enforceable. Even better is that whatever people have the right to possession of the property need do nothing to enjoy it, and the title remains undisturbed since the Trust still owns it.
Now the successor trustee, once you die in the case of a Revocable Living Trust, still has to dispose of the property as the Trust directs. But re-titling the house out of the Trust into someone's hands (if it's a 100% gift) or selling it and splitting the proceeds is no different than any other Real Estate transaction, as opposed to filing a Will, having the PR appointed, getting letters of authority and similar, along with all the delays and costs involved.
Finally none of this changes tax and debt obligations; you cannot evade either. If you try creditors (or the IRS) can (and if its worth it for them will) sue to claw back whatever you try to distribute outside of the process. If you have $10 large in a bank account and owe $25 large on a credit card, thinking you can POD the bank account to your daughter as a way to screw the credit card company out of the $25,000 that's likely to fail and get her sued a few months after you pass, quite possibly after she's already spent the money! Don't do that.
Finally there are "small estate" rules for people who die with little in the way of assets but the limits vary from state to state and in some states are laughably low, to the point that someone with nothing more than a modest car exceeds them.
As you can see this can be a lot more complex than it first appears, even if you aren't particularly wealthy. The only place it doesn't matter at all is if you either are or intend to die broke (or even better, deeply in the hole) -- in that case then **** 'em and do nothing with regard to finances (e.g. POD, will or trust), on purpose, but make damn sure nobody else has joint responsibility for anything so the people who you owe can't come after someone else when you die.
In short get competent advice -- there are plenty of people out there who are outright snakes and whoever is managing things for you when you pass is going to get to meet a bunch of them.
I just recently wound up my later mother's estate; I'm not a lawyer nor did I set up her affairs originally, but I did hold powers of attorney for both financial matters and health care and was her Personal Representative, and have seen the flat-out ugly bullcrap that everyone in the world tries to pull. I got dozens of spammy and in some cases scammy letters from various entities and people, along with more than a few phone calls. It's a five alarm pain in the ass and a good thing that I'm pretty-much a pissed-off alligator when someone steps on my tail and am more than willing to chase-and-bite -- hard. Most people would have been butt****ed by some of the crap that was pulled -- as it stands everyone who was legitimately owed money (not many) got paid and there was something left, with none of the schemers and scammers getting anything. That's the way it should be but it was overly complex -- when my time comes it won't be.