The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Stupidity]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
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.

2019-05-15 14:56 by Karl Denninger
in Stupidity , 122 references
[Comments enabled]  

Phononics on CNBS right now.

Peltier junctions are not new -- but they're claiming it is.

Why are not they used everywhere?


Thermoelectric junctions are about one quarter the energy efficiency of conventional compression-cycle units.

In other words on a Carnot-cycle basis a traditional system can manage to get into the ~50% range -- thermoelectric junctions run at 10-15% of theoretical efficiency!  This is why they're not widely-used; they make zero sense on an economic basis due to their much higher energy consumption.

CNBS of course puts these so-called "revolutionaries" on their show but there is nothing revolutionary about what they have.  Peltier-junction coolers have been available for a very long time and in fact you can buy them in the form of a cooler (you know, like an Igloo cooler?) right here and now.

Like, for example, right here:


View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-05-14 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Stupidity , 152 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is not a news organization.

It is a propaganda outfit.

I wonder if the AP is in fact in the employ of Xi -- of China -- and thus ought to be compelled to register under FARA.

US farmers who sell to China feel pain of Beijing’s tariffs

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — China’s announcement Monday of higher tariffs on $60 billion of American exports — retaliation for President Donald Trump’s latest penalties on Chinese goods — hit particularly hard in the farm belt. China’s vast consumer market has been a vital source of revenue for American farmers.

Wait a minute....

We're told that tariffs imposed on Chinese imports are paid in full by American consumers.

Ok, so tariffs imposed on American imports (to China) are paid in full by Chinese consumers.


Or was that first statement a lie?

It matters.

A lot.

See, if tariffs by China on imports from American farmers hit the producer, that is, the farmer then the same thing is true the other way -- that is, Trump's tariffs ARE HITTING THE CHINESE, NOT AMERICANS -- which is exactly what the media says doesn't happen.

Yet the farmers say it does happen.


In fact one ought to wonder out loud if they're at least communist sympathizers or even worse, in the employ of the PLA or some other arm or affiliate of the Communist Chinese Government.

As I pointed out in my article the other day thus far in the current fiscal year Treasury has taken in about $20 billion more in tariffs than last fiscal year to this same point.  The entire sale of agricultural products to China grosses about $24 billion a year.  Some of that can and will be sold to other markets.

But, we could trivially take a good part of that tariff revenue, buy the products on the market from the farmers that the Chinese impose on our farmers in the form of a buyer's strike (which the media says doesn't happen coming the other way) and give it to third-world starving children for them to eat.

Our net cost would be zero, we'd feed starving children and remember, the claim that this cost (in the revenue collected) falls on the American consumer is a lie.  It has to be a lie -- that is, THOSE TARIFF RECEIPTS ARE COMING OUT OF OF CHINESE PRODUCERS, NOT AMERICANS, otherwise the claim that the farmers are paying for the Chinese tariffs is a lie, and that appears to be true.

So which is it?

Never mind that I can make a very clean argument that we ought to let a lot of farmers go bankrupt.  Land prices right now ridiculous on a cap-rate basis when it comes to arable, tillable land.  Why?  Because of real interest rates that are below GDP and thus people are paid to borrow instead of spending, along with the "promise" that "prices always go up."  No they don't and this lie has driven many smaller and family farmers out of business.  Bankrupt a bunch of farmers, including big ag businesses and land prices will fall like a stone as they should to the point that smaller, family operations will once again make sense.

And why is AP still standing as a so-called "news" organization after running what is blatant, obvious bullcrap like this?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-05-13 12:10 by Karl Denninger
in Stupidity , 201 references
[Comments enabled]  

Let it burn to the ground.

If I see any of the people raising hell about this on fire and I have a glass of water -- I'll drink it.

If, on the other hand, it's a glass of gasoline....

A medical school lecture comparing the "parallels between fetuses and cancers" is coming under fire from the University of California as a dehumanizing lesson to students.

But the professor insists it wasn't the point of the slide.

The lecture, reportedly part of the UC San Diego School of Medicine course, Evolution of Human Disease, "explores the major epidemiological transitions from ape-like ancestors to foraging tribes, farmers and pastoralists, to the global metropolitan primate we now are. We focus on how diseases have shaped humans and how humans have shaped disease over time."

Remember context folks: This is a medical school lecture.

What the professor was referring to is that one of the differentiating factors with mammals is that they rely on implantation of an embryo into the mother which then causes the growth of a placenta that invades the uterine tissue -- and that makes possible the exchange of oxygen and waste between the mother and developing fetus.

Without this mechanism mammals could not exist.

This mechanism may well be part of why certain disease vectors exist too -- including cancer.

In fact it's a reasonable and well-understood scientific theory that is indeed one of the reasons mammals suffer from cancer at a higher rate than non-mammals.

Then there are a few animals that almost never develop cancer, despite being mammals.  Elephants are one of the few and it may be linked to a specific gene. But in general non-oviparous animals -- that is, those who do not have implantation of embryos into the mother's womb -- have lower cancer rates than oviparous animals.

The outrage directed at this professor is exactly the sort of nonsense that has infested virtually every aspect of so-called "higher education."  Educational pursuits are supposed to deal in facts and this is one of them -- mammals get cancer more often and it is a reasonable scientific deduction that one of the reasons why is that mammals have as an inherent part of their necessary cellular processes a provision for placental implantation to take place.  Therefore a tumor can abuse this mechanism to obtain for itself nutrition and waste disposal -- exactly as does a fetus.

That doesn't make a fetus a cancer, idiots!

Sweet meteor of death, may you smite the insanity in this land, found in abundance in the comments of the cited article.

I freely accept the potential of becoming collateral damage in offering this prayer to the heavens.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)