The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Editorial]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
There Can Be NO Compromise On Data

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.

2018-08-20 10:55 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 199 references
[Comments enabled]  

 

Who is Jeff Session's Boss?

Donald Trump, POTUS.

Can Trump direct Sessions to fire Bruce Ohr and, if he refuses, fire Sessions?  Absolutely.

Is there any Constitutional or other problem with doing so?  Absolutely not.

Therefore, Bruce Ohr has a job only because The President wants him to have a job.  He does not want him fired, despite calling his work "dirty, phony and discredited."

Think about that folks -- this is a President who wants and approves of phonydirty and discredited work in the Federal Government; he not only likes it and approves of it he is both willing and explicitly pays people to perform "work" in that fashion.

This is the fraud all of those walking around with "MAGA" and "Trump Train" hats, and promoting same on social media and elsewhere, are not only supporting but demanding.

Every one of you has fewer working neurons than Maxine Waters.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-08-20 09:37 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 96 references
[Comments enabled]  

Pope Baphomet Francis spewed forth....

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Baphomet Francis, facing sexual abuse crises in several countries, wrote an unprecedented letter to all Catholics on Monday, asking each one of them to help root out “this culture of death” and vowing there would be no more cover ups.

Francis could start with himself.  I understand pontifical smoke is lethal in sufficient concentration, and self-administration appears to be called for here.

Let's cut the crap -- The Church has repeatedly "faced" these scandals, it is not new, it is not "newly discovered" and the secrecy is neither new nor has it been dropped either, including to this very day despite Baphomet's spew.

There is an utterly monstrous over-representation of homosexuality among seminarians compared against the general population.  This, despite the fact that the Catholic Church preaches that homosexuality is inherently sinful and thus such a "leaning" whether followed through on or not is, theologically, a bar to the priesthood as is attraction to children.  But it not only isn't it's an attractant to the priesthood that is not only tolerated it is knowingly cultivated.

Personally, I don't give a crap if you're gay or not.  However, the Church cannot preach that homosexuality is a sin (and incidentally Leviticus and Deuteronomy both say it is, so cut the crap all you allegedly "progressive" Catholics and other Christians) and inherently disordered (their words, not mine) and yet at the same time continue the charade of an "inerrant" holy text and admit into the priesthood, diaconate and other offices of vocation those who are known to and in fact admit to be gay.

Second, Baphomet Francis has known damn well since before he was Pope that the inherent process of formation of a priest involves a large body of gathered evidence (because he personally coughed up same when he first became a priest) and further, that allegations of misconduct are not only recorded they are explicitly kept secret by the church and have been...... literally damn near forever.  There are myriad pontifical writings on the evils of these practices and that they are not new within the ranks of those pledged through vocation.

Yet he has done exactly nothing about either of these facts nor did he scrub the Priesthood of all who the Church had documentary evidence of misconduct, sexual alignment in ways that the Church's teachings forbid or both.

In other words Baphomet Francis is not sorry nor did he have any intention of putting a stop this crap and in fact he is Poop.

Nor does he intend to unseal all the secret files and publish them.  He damn well must and would if this was a function of a full and fair hearing of what the Church has done and to vow to sin no more.  Indeed the very premise of the Sacrament of Reconciliation has three prongs and none of them are optional:

1. You must admit one's sins, in full, to be forgiven them.  A sin you do not admit is one you retain for one cannot be sorrowful for what you refuse to admit.

2. You must make penance where possible for said sins; in this case that means full restitution where possible even at the cost of your own destruction.  You cannot bring back the dead but you sure can pay the living who you screwed up the ass and by doing so screwed up their heads!

3. You must vow to sin no more, which in this context means you must destroy, permanently, any edifice that enables, conceals or otherwise puts forward said sins.  In other words all such files must be exposed and no further acts of such hiding are permissible, ever again, period.

Oh, don't get me wrong -- Francis is indeed "sorry" all right.

Baphomet Francis is sorry he got caught -- and that's all.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-08-19 10:55 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 87 references
[Comments enabled]  

It never, ever changes.

Monopolists only change when one of three things happens: They're threatened with or actually suffer bankruptcy, prison or death, and most of the time even a credible threat isn't enough - you have to actually follow through.

That's why the original Sherman Act was passed, and then Clayton -- when people figured out how to get "around" Sherman by claiming no "actual" monopoly ("heh, one other gasoline company with 1% of the market still exists!") Clayton added the mere attempt to monopolize to the "you're a felon" list.  Then Robinson-Patman, for physical goods.  An actual 10 year prison term and $100 million fine per act or event, enough to ruin any company of any size along with sufficient time in prison for the executives, directors and officers to learn all about the joys of gay sex, was thought to perhaps be sufficient motivation to dampen such greed.

Those laws have never required that prices rise for consumers.  The Congressfolk who wrote them knew damn well, having seen decades of abuse, that monopolists would always claim the public would "benefit" through better efficiency and other such twaddle.

So the people who wanted to abuse you found other ways to get around the law.  They got career prosecutors to refuse to bring charges if there was no immediate and evident "price injury", even though the statute is utterly silent on that point.  They didn't, because they couldn't, go back to Congress to get the law amended -- if they had tried that there would have been hearings and public exposition of their scheme.  Instead they privately corrupted, bribed through the Washington DC revolving door and likely even coerced the FTC and others to simply do it "their way."

Presidents trumpeted the "success" of these ventures.  Health care.  The Internet.  SpAmazon.  Facesucker.  Twatter.

In the 1990s while CEO of MCSNet I ran into the old monopolist games at play. There was a "neutral" meet point for Internet traffic in Chicago, which happened to be run by Ameritech, one of the Baby Bells that was split off when Ma Bell was broken up.  I wanted to pull a line in there for traffic interchange and requested a quote.

I got it -- with an impossibly-small piece of the total being the circuit to get there.

Remember, circuits are allegedly common-carrier items -- that is, to be provided on a non-discriminatory basis.

Well, since circuits were and are priced by the mile I should have been able to order a dozen of them to different places, all on a non-discriminatory basis, for the price they quoted me to the NAP -- and remember, that quote I had in writing.

I tried doing exactly that and of course they told me to pound sand.

I filed a complaint with the ICC, the state regulator.

They ignored it; I literally got no response at all, despite circuits being a regulated, tariffed service!

At that point it was obvious what was eventually going to happen.  There would be one cable franchise (which already had right-of-way access in the area) which would be able to (once they got the cost issues figured out) get internet into your house.  There would also be those who try to leverage tariffed "dry pairs" for DSL, but that was fraught with trouble because the monopolist on local circuits (Ameritech) had zero interest in fostering competition, of course, and so you'd be fighting them every inch of the way -- never mind the gross disadvantage those firms would be put under in terms of colocation space and backhaul requirements, both of which Ameritech controlled (every one of those firms failed, by the way, exactly as I predicted they would.)  In the meantime everyone else would have to figure out how they were going to continue to innovate and survive while this so-called "market shift" happened -- which was in fact no such thing.

Neither side of the aisle gave a damn about any of that, and nobody went to prison.

The same model got ramped up in medical too -- and nobody has gone to prison there either, despite it being illegal for more than 100 years in that business just like any other.

Now we have Facesucker, Goolag, Spamazon and a handful of others who are deliberately censoring certain content they don't like.  It's not illegal content being censored -- just content they find despicable.  But note that their "standards" are, shall we say, "fluid" -- there are literally dozens of people on Twatter, for example, who have posted statements of either intent or desire to kill white people -- yet they not only still have accounts they're "verified" by Twatter.  The NY Times hired one such racist as an editor and Twatter verified her too, despite knowing of literally dozens of such public messages.

Meanwhile Praeger University along with others have been either "shadow banned", had their reach restricted, kicked off entirely and similar -- for alleged "hate speech."

In response now we have the very same "free market" folks that allowed these monopolists to get where they are despite it being illegal in the first place demanding "regulation."

Really?

You mean the free market isn't good enough all of the sudden?

Why not?

Why doesn't the conservative side of the aisle organize a nice fat boycott and blackball campaign?  That's legal, by the way.  Target these firms, all their advertisers and all these firm's employees and their families.

Work for Zuckerpig?  You're persona-non-grata.

Goolag?  Same.

Spamazon?  Ditto.

Put half the nation (which is about where the conservative:liberal line is) on these folk's butts.

There's a "Christian" Church not far from here and I bet it's full of red-side voters -- given that the county here votes something like 80% Republican.  It has a nice "Like us on Facebook" logo on their sign.  Are they insane?  Why don't some of the people who own the cars out front right now at that "house of worship" tell them that either they take their page down (and the free advertising for Facesucker) or you're not only going to boycott going to the church as there are others who don't do such things you're also going to boycott your neighbor who attends said church as well and you'll extend that to the neighbor's kid when she is selling Girl Scout cookies!

In short why don't you tell them this TODAY: "That's a very nice and large building you have here.  It would be a pity if every single pew was EMPTY on Sunday and so was your collection plate but that's exactly what I'm going to make my life's mission if you don't cut that crap out right now!"

How many stores and other places around you have such signs on their doors?  Facebook, Instragram, Yelp, etc?  Really?

To those on the "right" side of the political aisle: How many of those businesses do you patronize?  How many have you walked into, spoken with someone there, and told them that either they remove their page and endorsement or you're never going to buy anything there nor will you supply said business, its employees and their families with anything?

That's legal, by the way.

Do this and the problem disappears instantly because these firms would see their business crater.  Facesucker, Spamazon (the destroyer of small firms throughout the nation), Twatter and Goolag would see their "engagement", ability to "sell ads" and their stock prices utterly decimated.

Simply put there are enough "red people", even in big cities that vote "blue", to utterly trash any firm's ability to stay in business if they support such censorship and political games -- and by advertising or promoting any such business that's exactly what they're doing.

Conservatives have every tool necessary to take care of this without a single bit of government anything.

I've driven through dozens of blood-red political areas over the last year and in every one of them I see those signs, stickers on the windows of firms and similar.  They're everywhere.  TripAdvisor is another one -- which has taken very hard-left political stances.

So why are you so-called "conservatives" such pussies that you can't be bothered to walk into every single one of these places you walk by when you're strolling on the sidewalk or in the shopping mall and tell them that not only will you not shop there you'll do everything in your power to "de-access" the owners, employees and all of their families until and unless they stop supporting this jackbooted bull**** that is suppressing the voices of people who you want to hear from?

You need no government action to take care of this problem -- unless you're actually a Pajama Boy, in which case you're not "conservative" at all -- are you?

In short either nut up or shut up.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-08-18 09:45 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 92 references
[Comments enabled]  

The "press" is going nuts over her banning of journalists from a town hall she is running.

Meh.

The First Amendment protects free speech and association.  The right to free association includes the right not to associate with anyone you so choose.

There goes the argument that the press is "required" to be invited in.  Nope.

However, there are two further problems.  First, anyone might be a member of the press and not announce it.  If it's an open town hall, so long as you act like an ordinary person then, well, you're an ordinary person!  You get no special privileges, she might ban cameras and recording equipment, etc -- but that doesn't stop you from coming in, listening, and then filing a report when you leave.  There's nothing she can do about that.

There's also nothing she can do about the press whining or the voters deciding they don't like her for her refusal to let the press in.  On the other hand they might decide they'd rather ask the questions themselves and the Press are a bunch of jackasses anyway, in which case...... that's up to them.

So cry me a river, so-called press.  I've gone to plenty of events without slinging a camera and being "obviously identified" as a member of the Press, yet written stories on what I experienced later.  There's nothing wrong with that; nobody says you have to wear a badge or sling a big fat video camera or dSLR, or for that matter any camera or recording equipment at all.  Of course there might be a nice little pocket Tascam recorder in my suit's vest pocket - - or these days, my phone.  In a public forum, "town hall" or even just walking down the street there's no expectation of privacy and thus doing that violates neither law or common decency.

But there's also nothing that says a political candidate, or anyone else for that matter, has to converse with you.

They don't -- so says the First Amendment.

I may think Occasional is a nut, but when you're right you're right -- otherwise insane or not.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-08-16 12:44 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 232 references
[Comments enabled]  

I have no interest in or desire to engage in "proactive" violence (as opposed to self-defense, which is always permissible.)  Even if you can get through whatever keyholes you may have in terms of ethics or morals on such an act I am left with the inescapable conclusion that those who remain when you're done simply aren't worth what you spent (your life.)

However, if called upon to defend the status quo, whether it be the local sheriff, county, state or federal government I would refuse.  Why?  Because that too is not worth spending my life on.

Would I spend my life to protect a federal government that has refused to enforce 100+ year old anti-trust law and has allowed the medical industry to screw the population out of trillions of dollars over the last 20+ years, never mind Beelzebezos and Zuckerpig screwing the entire population via their data sales, H1bs, destroyed firms and offshoring?  No.

Would I spend my life to protect a state or local government that has refused to enforce those very same laws, despite them being on the books here, and instead has incessantly raised taxes on the citizens to fund the rip-off practices of these "industries" that have as their best analog the (actual) mafia?  No.

Would I spend my life to protect a local sheriff who is very interested in giving out traffic tickets and DUIs but can't be bothered to enforce those very same laws against local medical providers and hospitals?  No.

Would I spend my life to protect any of the myriad CEOs and other "mavens" that have stolen their wealth from the population at large by offshoring jobs, supporting illegal invaders, suppressing wages via H1b abuse or engaging in cross-subsidy games recognized as illegal 100+ years ago under that very same anti-trust law, or who run companies that admit to being able to "sway any political contest" through abuse of data or who collect and sell access to same and similar?  No.

Would I spend my life to defend any employee of a state government which "sues" a pharmaceutical firm for intentionally marketing opioids under false pretense?  Such a suit, if won, will be paid by the customers of the firm since they'll simply jack up the price!  The state could indict the executives and marketing folks for involuntary manslaughter but instead they choose to make the victims pay twice -- first with their health or life and then again in money!  No.

Would I spend my life to defend and protect any member of the media that have been complicit in all of the above?  Hell no.

The local Catholic Church -- and others I drive by -- have parking lots full of cars when it's time for mass.  Given that we now know with certainty, and in fact we did back in 2002 or thereabouts, that the clergy, bishops, cardinals and Rome knew damn well that pedophilia was essentially a "second occupation" for many priests -- well north of 10,000 of them in the US alone -- tell me why I would associate with or assist anyone who attends such mass or puts a single nickel in the plate?  I terminated my affiliation as soon as this was evident but nearly nobody else has.  Why are not these edifices gone, confiscated to pay redress to the victims and every one of those guilty either directly or by cover-up in prison?  Why has not this evil edifice, to be blunt, been destroyed?  Every one of the persons in those pews has been and currently is knowingly funding the literal rape of children for a period going on nearly two decades at this point!  Do you think I would spend my life to defend any of theirs?  They-will-burn-in-Hell no.

Would I spend my life to protect a county commission (ours) that hiked our property taxes 11% last year instead of enforcing that very same body of law -- when the reason for the hike is specifically stated to be the rapacious cost of health care both for county employees and inmates at the local lockup?  Double Hell no.

Never mind the millions of older Americans who have literally been forced out of their homes due to the property tax ramp game as a result of these scams.  My former home near Chicago has seen a clean doubling of property tax assessments since I sold and left.  Others I know have also seen an insane ramp; a 50% increase over the last 10 years in many areas is common.  What has been the increase in Social Security payments during that time?  An effective zero due to ZIRP.  So how does a senior on fixed income come up with that sort of increase?  

They can't.

I can name literally hundreds of similar instances.  The myriad CEOs of financial institutions from before the 2008 meltdown -- and since, in the case of Wells ****You -- who have presided over dozens if not hundreds of acts that had you or I stolen the same amount of money would have left us facing decades in prison yet none have gone to jail make me retch. Elon Musk didn't appear to have just misled people with his recent tweet on taking Tesla private; he now claims to have had alleged "discussions" about a buyout with the Saudis for roughly two years previous and he was buying stock in the meantime while in possession of that material inside information which, if those discussions actually happened and is not a lie constitutes insider trading.  This, if true, is a 20 year in prison felony.  The government tweets about busting people for this very offense quite frequently (including just recently a sitting US House member) yet Elon Musk just admitted to doing the same thing in an open letter on the corporate web page and... he's walking around DefCon free as a bird.  If you or I pulled that crap they would have arrested us and led us away in handcuffs right here, right now.

Why the **** would I spend my life defending any organization, person, state, local or federal authority who sit on their fat asses instead of getting out the handcuffs when a (very) rich SOB brazenly and publicly appears to admit to violating the same law they just got done busting a Congressman for?  They can all -- the FBI, SDNY and SEC -- go **** a duck as I will never risk spending my life to defend any of theirs given their willful and intentional refusal to act as required by law.

I'm aware of a murder that took place in a big city about two weeks ago.  I didn't know the victim but someone close to me did.  The killing took place on a freeway, late at night, in the middle of one of the largest cities in the country.  There are DOT cameras literally every few hundred feet in that town on those freeways (I've driven the specific road where it occurred) and yet despite shell casings being found in the vehicle where his body and stopped car was, not wrecked but parked in the right lane, which strongly implies that he stopped and then was shot from either inside or just outside the car (and the assailant then fled either on foot or in another vehicle) none of the "wonderful" city and state officials can manage to find anything related to what other vehicles or people were in the immediate vicinity at the time in question.  If you believe the cops actually give a **** about ordinary people and arresting assailants even when murder is involved -- given the density of video imaging in the immediate vicinity which essentially had to have captured that murder when it occurred and the escape of the shooter I have a bridge to sell you.  If that was a cop that had been shot there would have been a nationwide manhunt, including the FBI, within hours if not minutes.  Instead we get the cops jacking off for days instead of immediately viewing all the video from the immediate area and trying to find the person who committed the murder.  If you think, given this fact, that I'll spend my life to defend, rescue or protect any ****head-in-blue, ever, you're dumber than a box of rocks.

Here's reality: If I ever see any of these people -- federal, state, county or local officials, or others complicit in similar acts -- in a burning car on the side of the road I wouldn't even******on it.  I can personally guarantee that I would show them the same passive indifference to the ****ing they are taking through chance or some other person's nefarious act that they have shown to everyone else when the shoe was on the other foot over the last several decades.  Unlike when I am a captain of a vessel upon the water I have no legal duty to assist if I am able -- and thus I pledge here and now, in public, that I will not, ever, under any circumstance, assist and I certainly will not risk spending my life in such a pursuit.

Period.

This sad state of affairs in our nation is not stable yet the outrageous behavior -- and damage -- continues to build by the day and it's not the decent people of this nation that are causing it.  It's all the *******s who either willfully ignore the lawbreaking despite a legal duty to stop it or are actively participating in it.

Eventually some percentage of those who cannot find justice and have been personally hurt or even destroyed by these outrageous violations of the law, criminal felonies intentionally ignored by the government for decades despite the harm done to real people by them on a literal daily and continuing basis, will decide they've had enough of this crap and the willful, intentional indifference and blindness by government and corporate actors across this country.

Their decision to spend their life at that moment will be a coldly-calculated and pure act of revenge.

Such an act, or even millions of similar acts, when they occur -- and they will eventually occur due to the utter and complete refusal of our government to put a stop to any of this crap by the rich and powerful despite its illegality -- cannot be defended.

But such an act can be understood, and if those acts of revenge are directed at the people who committed the wrongs, and not wildly-incoherent violence harming those who either tried to help or had nothing to do with the abuses, I am no longer willing to condemn same.

Instead I will tip a glass filled with two fingers of a nice Scotch in quiet respect for those who have decided, quite-sanely, calmly and deliberately, that they simply have had enough and will endure those abuses no more.  The government at all levels could have before and can today decide to put a stop to this crap and yet while they prosecute a sitting House member for a very-legitimate crime others who do the same thing, or even engage in much worse offenses and screw the public out of trillions or even rape children are not only ignored they are treated by the media and lawmakers as cult heroes.

I will not excuse the indefensible -- but one does not have to excuse or condone an act to understand and have respect for it.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)