The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
Make Me Move

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.

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.

2018-04-24 13:12 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 21 references
 

Email kairia.rocks@gmail.com now to put this original piece on your wall.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



2018-04-24 09:35 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 166 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's not yet clear why a man in a rented van decided to run over a bunch of people on Yonge Street in Toronto yesterday.

He killed 10 and wounded many more.

The obvious, given the use of trucks and cars as weapons in Europe, would be an act of terrorism.  But quite quickly the individual was identified and his ethnicity didn't fit the pattern.  We do not yet know if there's a religious motive or not, but the odds appear to have shifted away from that.  It now looks increasingly like this guy was just plain nuts -- like the Waffle House assailant.

What's quite-clear, however, is that it was a deliberate act.

Now contemplate this folks: It's far easier to get a van, a pickup truck or a car than a gun.

They cost far less to rent for a few hours than a gun does to buy and there is no background check -- all you need is money, and not much of it either.  Indeed you can buy one if you wish, and an old, decrepit example works just as well as a nice, new shiny one for this sort of purpose.

They're also far more efficient in killing than a firearm in that they take much less skill to operate if your intent is to run people over and you can hit and kill a lot more people, faster, than you can with a firearm.  Worse, they offer a fair bit of "armor" toward interdicting those trying to stop you too.  You simply need a place with a lot of people -- like a busy city sidewalk or park -- and mayhem is sure to result.

Unlike Waffle House where one dude decided "no, you're not killing me for free", stopping someone with a vehicle is an entirely different thing.  If you're one of the targeted by definition you won't have a car in your back pocket to ram the attacker with!  Yet another vehicle of reasonably-comparable size and mass, or a gun, are pretty much your only options for halting such an attacker.

I give the Toronto cops a lot of credit here -- this guy tried to get them to shoot him, and they refused.  The trigger-happy bastard cops in this country would have blasted him for sure, which would leave us unable to ask questions.  For all the obvious reasons it's far better from a standpoint of figuring out what happened if you get the jackass alive.

The point, of course, is that whatever someone chooses to use as a weapon isn't the problem, and trying to ban any sort of item used as a weapon is worse than pointless because there are many other items to choose from.  All you do by banning guns is prevent them from being used by normal and sane citizens in defense when a nutjob decides to go on a rampage.

If you think this is coming from stupidity you're the one that's stupid.  The Waffle House shooter could have been hauled in front of a judge on a mental dependency petition and involuntarily committed.  "Hearing voices" and thinking that celebrities are stalking them, plus possessing firearms, plus waving an AR-15 around and menacing people at a business isn't enough?  Like hell it isn't.  The left is screaming about Tennessee not having Illinois' gun licensing system when the fact is that just as with Cruz this clown displayed, on multiple occasions, including menacing people with an AR-15, that he was mentally incompetent.  Existing law was simply not applied, again and on purpose.

Once again where are the indictments against the ****ing cops who once again let a guy who demonstrated he was both nuts and dangerous go when they had repeated opportunities to haul him in front of a judge and obtain a mental incompetence finding for several years before he shot up that restaurant?  They did not do so, they did not do so on purpose, and had they done so the event would not have occurred.

Those pressing such "common sense" positions such as restrictions on firearms must be ignored and shunned.  Since they claim power by association with others all who associate with them, including their families, business and others must also be shunned and economically destroyed.  I remind you that such refusals to associate or do business with are legal.  Let them form their own little enclave protected by people..... without any guns, since they believe they should not exist.  To the extent this includes cops yes, they go on the list too along with their families, children and everyone they associate with.  Let them figure out how to keep the thugs who don't give a damn about the law at bay without weapons.  In short let them live in their own little Hell, which is what it will immediately become just as it did in Nazi Germany or Rawanda, but to the extent they try to inflict that Hell on the rest of us may they and their families starve, may any business they associate with be destroyed, and may any politician or government employee that takes up their claims and demands be run out of office and then starve.

If someone like this lives near you put this sign on your lawn:

 

It is up to the rest of us, and in fact the duty of citizens who have more than two firing neurons in our heads and are more emotionally and intellectually as competent as a two-year old to make it so, to commit ourselves to that as our daily mission and to make them face the reality of their attempted demand -- they're going to have to commit mass-murder on the scale of millions in this country.

The rest of us must demand that if this is truly what they're willing to do that they go ahead and attempt it themselves.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-04-24 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 142 references
[Comments enabled]  

Why do we have the Second Amendment?

It's not to protect your ability to hunt deer.

It is, in the gravest circumstance, to protect your ability to hunt the most-dangerous animal on the planet.

It is precisely that ability, and only that ability, that deters someone -- or a bunch of someones -- contemplating doing something truly awful, whether it's a mugger, a rapist -- or a tyrannical government.

The government knows this.  In fact they know it better than anyone, for they employ roughly a million people who use weapons, starting with firearms and moving up into even more-efficient ways to kill and destroy, for that exact purpose.  The nation "projects force" in the hope that we won't need to use even greater force, up to and including nuclear weapons.

Maybe we're fools for believing that the very presentation of a ship, plane, or platoon of men bristling with guns and missiles will deter someone for something bad, and maybe we're not.

But that very same question -- does presentation of a weapon -- the knowledge that you have one, that it's at least the equal of what your potential attacker might have, and that the odds are at least somewhat even or perhaps in your favor shift the mindset of said attacker and cause him or her to choose to cease their course of action -- before they attack or otherwise do harm.

The CDC in fact knows the answer to this when it comes to guns in the hands of the public.  They've known it since the 1990s.  They've concealed their knowledge.  But... now that has been unearthed.

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

Now there are some issues with that data.  One of them is that it doesn't encompass all 50 states.  But here's the interesting piece of that data:

For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."

In other words the CDC intentionally concealed the fact that they had asked these questions.

Is that because the government didn't like the answer?

After all, there's only 50,000 gun laws and regulations that make it harder for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, and if in fact defensive use of firearms is nearly 4 times as frequent as criminal use then every one of those laws is implicated in harming public safety.

Never mind the jackasses-in-chief these days such as Hogg, who by extension are promoting policies that would lead to more criminal victims by preventing law-abiding citizens from being armed and able to use firearms defensively.

Again, most of the time when someone uses a firearm defensively it is not fired.  Indeed, less than a quarter of the time is the weapon discharged.  Just like the aircraft carrier full of planes loaded with bombs and missiles deters some nation from doing a nasty thing the business end of a firearm pointed at a criminal usually -- more than three quarters of the time, in fact -- deters said criminal without the gun having to be fired.

Public safety, in short, is advanced by the Second Amendment, and not just in the deterrence of tyrannical government acts.  Indeed, the more-common "smaller" criminal violations are also deterred at a rate of nearly 4:1 over their advancement.

Any particular choice you can make that has a 4:1 return of good .vs. bad is one that society greatly benefits from.  This fact has been known to our government for roughly the last 20 years as they studied it and intentionally concealed the results.  Those who argue for "common sense" gun restrictions are in fact arguing for not only making the nation less safe but are also demanding mass murder occur for political purpose.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-04-23 12:38 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 100 references
 

Looks a lot like this if you think this market is going To Infinity and Beyond!

 

Email kairia.rocks@gmail.com now to make this unique piece yours!

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-04-23 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 183 references
[Comments enabled]  

You won't like this.....

BACKGROUND: Opioids are effective postoperative analgesics. Disturbingly, we have previously reported that opioids such as morphine can worsen inflammatory pain and peripheral and central neuropathic pain. These deleterious effects are mediated by immune mediators that promote neuronal hyperexcitability in the spinal dorsal horn. Herein, we tested whether perioperative morphine could similarly prolong postoperative pain in male rats.

In other words opiods have a potential to lengthen post-operative pain -- which is, of course, exactly the opposite of what you want a pain drug to do.

What did they find?

RESULTS: We found that morphine treatment after laparotomy extended postoperative pain by more than 3 weeks (time × treatment: P < .001; time: P < .001; treatment: P < .05). Extension of postoperative pain was not related to morphine withdrawal, as it was not prevented by dose tapering (time × treatment: P = .8; time: P < .001; treatment: P = .9).

Yuck.

So why are these drugs used in this fashion again?

Oh, by the way, they're commonly handed out for various dental procedures such as extractions (e.g. wisdom teeth, etc), not just "whole body" surgeries.

I had a couple of wisdom teeth extracted a number of years ago and was given a prescription for pain killers (Oxycodone.)  I didn't take any of them as the post-op pain wasn't particularly bad and certainly nothing that aspirin couldn't handle.  Was it uncomfortable?  Yeah, a bit, but not "head-splitting" bad.

It appears that was a good choice as actually consuming the opioids, even if they had provided some relief, probably would have made the duration of the pain longer.

Of course the mediscam and pharmascam systems have every incentive to hand this crap out anyway, never mind that these aren't new drugs and this phenomena has likely been known -- and keep quiet or just ignored -- for a hell of a long time.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)