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):
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.

2018-04-21 14:23 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 148 references
[Comments enabled]  

Really, I generally don't care.

But the dripping, outrageous acts of hypocrisy on the part of the so-called "Tea Party" here and elsewhere are why I gave the finger, formally and publicly, to the group -- even though some people attributed its formation in part to my work.

I'm sure you remember my going after the so-called "Tea Party" if you've been reading my work for a while.  Here's just one of the many articles, from 2010, and of course you can find the original that started my discussion in that regard here.  Or, if you prefer, go ahead and read this one from just in front of the 2010 elections, or this one from right after those elections. (Warning: If you don't like adult language don't click those links!)

So it was with much bemusement that I read this on Twatter just now:

 

You don't say.....

Maybe you should have taken some of that advice a few years ago eh?

Like, maybe, eight or nine years back?

It's not like the Tea Party didn't have 90% issues -- the ones that are so overwhelming that they'd win every time at the ballot box.  They did.  Like these, for example:

No bailouts -- instead we hand out prison sentences for the banksters.  Not doing so got exactly how many more people screwed by Wells ****ed-You in the following years?  How many of those scams would have been run if a few dozen bank executives and board members had been indicted in 2009 and 2010 for their scams and schemes in the housing bubble?  How many bubble games would everyone be playing now if the acknowledged and inescapable price of doing it was 20 years in Club Fed and loss of all your wealth?

Enforce anti-trust against everyone without fear or favor.  Especially doctors, hospitals, medical insurance companies and drug firms.  Obamacare would have been rendered unnecessary and there would be a multi-hundred-billion dollar a year budget surplus being run for the last decade if we had done that.  You had (and still have!) a double win available there and squander both on the altar of your false Guns, Gays and Gods.

And how far would Pajama Boy Hogg have gotten had we actually held the FBI and DOJ to account all those years ago for their criminal acts?  You know, like Eric (Place) Holder's Fast-n-Furious that led to multiple murders -- a program that was blatantly and outrageously illegal.  Do you really think Comey, Lynch and pals would have played their little game during the 2016 election if Holder had been rotting in a prison cell for his bull****?  Oh Hell no.  The FBI would have done their damned job and the "Draw Mohammad" shooting, Pulse, the Texas Church Shooting and Parkland all would not have happened since every one of those shooters committed either plenty of felonies on a prior basis or gave plenty of warning they were intending one and in all four one or more government agencies knew about it, didn't do their jobs and in two of them had specific, actionable information and either did nothing or worse, were literally right behind the shooter in their own car immediately before the event and didn't arrest him.

Pajama Boy and all his nutless (and nutjob) friends are irrelevant, really -- the relevant point is that the people who were killed would still be here because the jackwad who did it would have been arrested first for the real and actionable crimes they previously committed and were both well-known to the authorities and intentionally ignored.

Oh, and the so-called Tea Party still hasn't demanded that the outrageously corrupt jackasses responsible for all of that go to prison.

The base sentiment in your tweet is correct but unfortunately it's self-serving and intentionally dishonest -- because, in the end, you don't believe a word of it.  The so-called Tea Party is just as regressive and socio-religiously blind without regard to the Constitution or its boundaries as are Muslim terrorists.

Welcome to the party Charlie, but let's cut the crap eh?  As the self-proclaimed founder of Tea Party USA (the group, not the movement) and Executive Director you need to deal with the outrageous and blatant hypocrisy of not only your tweet but what you allowed, condoned and fostered among the organization -- and continue to today.

Yes, Marijuana must be descheduled because it's scheduling was and is not only a criminal fraud it's blatantly unconstitutional.  Our government knew that to ban something like marijuana a Constitutional amendment was required because it had done exactly that with alcohol -- and it also knew doing it was a mistake because it is the only amendment to ever be repealed.  So why is this bull**** tolerated by you or anyone else that actually believes what you just said?

Yes, the 2nd Amendment means what it says.  I note that you haven't said that, however.  "Don't like guns, don't buy one" sounds great.  How about all of the 50,000 laws and regulations that say otherwise?  The NFA is unconstitutional, the GCA of 1968 is unconstitutional, the Brady Bill is unconstitutional and the Holmes Amendment was never actually passed according to both House Rules and Roberts' Rules of Order; the Congressional Record was in fact forgedyet people have and do go to prison for violating that non-law.  So where is TPUSA raising hell about any of that?  May I impolitely remind you that certain cretins tried to impose just one of those 50,000 laws and regulations at Concord and what it led to?  You have the balls to co-opt the movement that responded to that and related acts yet you cower behind a tweet instead of living up to your group's name?

There's your three items (weed, booze and guns.)

And by the way, you still haven't addressed the easy 90% issues -- fraud in the medical and banking systems.  You know, those pesky issues that would instantly win supermajoritities in both the House and Senate and end all this bull****!

Is that because you like the favors of those in power within certain parts of the eCONomy and political theater that benefit you?

Just askin', you know.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-04-18 14:21 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 159 references
[Comments enabled]  

Go read this Ticker again.

Our ******* of the day is found here:
[13:14] SSL ACCEPT Error [http request] on [::ffff:113.0.39.228]

Which is:

[karl@NewFS ~]$ whois -h whois.apnic.net 113.0.39.228
% [whois.apnic.net]
% Whois data copyright terms http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html

% Information related to '113.0.0.0 - 113.7.255.255'

% Abuse contact for '113.0.0.0 - 113.7.255.255' is 'hqs-ipabuse@chinaunicom.cn'

inetnum: 113.0.0.0 - 113.7.255.255
netname: UNICOM-HL
descr: China Unicom Heilongjiang Province Network
descr: China Unicom
country: CN
admin-c: CH1302-AP
tech-c: BG63-AP
remarks: service provider
status: ALLOCATED PORTABLE
remarks: --------------------------------------------------------
remarks: To report network abuse, please contact mnt-irt
remarks: For troubleshooting, please contact tech-c and admin-c
remarks: Report invalid contact via www.apnic.net/invalidcontact
remarks: --------------------------------------------------------
mnt-irt: IRT-CU-CN
mnt-by: APNIC-HM
mnt-lower: MAINT-CNCGROUP-HL
mnt-routes: MAINT-CNCGROUP-RR
last-modified: 2016-05-04T00:14:33Z
source: APNIC

Blow me you scamming thief.

There is utterly no reason for a Chinese organization to attempt to connect to my house.  Not once either -- many, many times.

This is not a mistake -- it's an intentional act.

Believe me, they're trying to connect to your house too, and if you have anything "smart" in it or, for that matter, you've got a nice WiFi router or other "commercial" product there's a good chance they're in it as most of those devices, unlike HomeDaemon-MCP, are not secure.

You don't really think they mean well, do you?  It's not like you put that nice "smart speaker" you bought in your bedroom, did you?  There's nothing with a camera on your home network either, right?

If I had the power I'd reply back to the source with a nice can of sunshine -- on your behalf, of course.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-04-18 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 368 references
[Comments enabled]  

Nobody seems to care about all the data scamming that is going on.

No prosecutions, no FTC actions, no fines, no mass-exodus from Facebook, no mass-destruction of Android or IOS phones, no tossing Zuckerpig in prison, nothing.

I'll tell you when someone will care.

It wouldn't be hard at all to pervert "ad targeting" to collect a database of people who are extremely likely to be, say, military members.

Or their families.

Or cops.

Or virtually any other tightly-correlated group of people.

You can get very precise given the volume of data and tools today.

So you set up a company that allegedly wants to "advertise" to said people, you buy ads with that targeting and those who "click" or otherwise "interact" you now have pinpointed.  In a short while you can correlate them through other sources and now you know who they are in real life, not just as numbers in a machine.

You know exactly where they work, where they live (down to the actual street address), where they worship (if they worship), where their children go to school and where they shop.

That little device in your teen's pocket, never mind yours, delivers your location on an exact basis, within tens of feet, 24x7 every single day.

The problem is that the bad guy isn't a company trying to sell laundry detergent or timeshares.

They're jihadists.  Or Antifas.  Or any other group -- or individual -- with motive and money -- and these days, not all that much money either.  A few million is more than enough.

Still think all this tracking is no big deal, eh?

As soon as the wrong entity decides to do this sort of thing if you're in the group they choose to target you're going to be dead wrong.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-04-13 11:05 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 188 references
[Comments enabled]  

I often do not agree with "The Judge" but this time he's spot-on....

Did the FBI lawfully break in to the headquarters of the president’s family business and cart away files and equipment from his lawyer, as well as legal and financial files of the president himself? The short answer is: yes.

As the Judge points out there are basically two exceptions to the "subpoena, don't raid" rule when it comes to lawyers with the most important being potential independent criminal activity.

There is a potential issue here and, as Judge Nap points out, Cohen may have implicated himself in that regard with his own public statements.

Specifically, Cohen said that he independently paid off Daniels and that he borrowed the money through a mortgage to do it.

Well, that's a problem -- exactly as it's a problem if you borrow money through student loans and then buy Bitcoin with it.

That's bank fraud; you borrowed the money under false pretense.  Then you get the add-ons when you start moving the money around; if you use the mails, it's mail fraud and if you use the wires, it's wire fraud.

I think Nap may well be right and if so, well, there's the problem with opening your mouth to the press -- especially if you wind up appearing to admit to a federal criminal act when you do it.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-04-12 12:30 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 108 references
[Comments enabled]  

Well well look what we have here.

‘I’m convinced de-scheduling the drug is needed so we can do research, help our veterans, and reverse the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities.’

Not re-schedulingde-scheduling.

In other words, doing the right thing and removing marijuana (and its derivatives) from federal drug laws entirely.

It's about damn time.

The facts are that marijuana, listed as a "Schedule I" drug, is factually listed there under false pretense.  Simply put a drug winds up on Schedule I if it has no accepted medical use and a high potential for addiction or other serious abuse.

Marijuana and its derivatives fit neither criteria.  It is not physically addictive in any form and has well-known and accepted medical use, with the most-profound being in children with severe seizure disorders that often respond to nothing else.

In some forms (e.g. CBD preparations) it has zero addictive potential since those preparations have such a tiny quantity of psychoactive compounds in them that you're incapable of getting stoned by using them.

Marijuana and its psychoactive derivatives (those with more than a small amount of THC) can be psychologically addictive yet that is true for virtually all substances and acts that modify one's consciousness or bodily process.  Indeed, running is psychologically addictive as I can personally attest -- yet nobody would talk about scheduling running shoes (or banning them as "drug paraphernalia") in any sort of serious fashion.

Caffeine, and preparations containing it (e.g. coffee), which I happen to enjoy, are physically addictive.  If you're a coffee drinker on a regular basis and stop drinking it for a couple of days you'll figure this out the hard way -- withdrawal produces nasty headaches that are utterly unresponsive to NSAIDS such as aspirin and ibuprofen.  They take days to subside too.  It is entirely possible to "overdose" on caffeine and die as well; it's difficult to do, but not impossible.  Yet I can buy coffee literally anywhere and there is no age restriction on its purchase of any sort either.

Alcohol, of course, is sold everywhere but age-restricted and taxed quite-heavily.  Alcohol has no accepted medical use and it has a moderate potential for abuse.  It is both psychologically and physically addictive and can, in severe cases of addiction, kill you during withdrawal.  It can also kill you due to acute poisoning; a BAC of over 0.3 puts you in the danger zone and 0.45% is the LD-50 -- the BAC where 50% of those who get there will die.  Yet last night I sat in a bar, had a nice conversation with some people there, ate some wings and...... drank alcohol.  All of this was legal and before operating my vehicle I checked my BAC to make sure I was under the lawful limit of 0.08%.  Yes, I have a meter in my glove box ($100 for that, plus $20 to have it re-calibrated annually, is a hell of a lot cheaper than a DUI, never mind stopping several of my friends from driving over the last several years by convincing them to blow into it before they got into their cars.)

It's literally physically impossible to overdose and die on marijuana.  You can get ridiculously stoned to the point of being incapacitated until it wears off but it's impossible to kill yourself smoking or eating it.

Prohibiting people from driving while stoned (and arresting them for DUI if they do) needs no new law; it's already illegal.  Colorado's test point (as an example) is ridiculously low (well below the point of intoxication, in fact, which is a problem since it allows them to bust you when you're not stoned but have consumed some 12 hours previously!) but that's fixable through scientific study and appropriate amendment.  Indeed I've long argued that the best impairment tests would be those that are substance-agnostic; it would be pretty-trivial to design and have certified a reaction time and coordination test much like a handheld video game that would reliably test on a roadside basis whether you're in decent-enough condition to drive.  Lawmakers don't like this idea however, as it would cause many not-stoned but very-impaired (e.g. elderly) people to fail and be arrested.  That should happen; if it's too dangerous to drive if you're impaired to that degree on booze or weed then it's also too dangerous for you to drive if you're impaired to that degree due to age or any other condition.

Yeah, Jeff Sessions doesn't like weed.  **** him.  He doesn't get to make laws any more since he's no longer in the Senate.

Congress has that authority.

So Congress -- where are you?  I'll write it for you:

As of the signing of this legislation:

1. The drug commonly known as "marijuana", the plants of the genus Cannabis and products and preparations made from same are hereby removed and exempt from Federal Drug Scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act (21 USC Chapter 13, Sub1, Part B, Sec 812.) and 21 CFR 1308.

2. The specific reference to marijuana shall be removed from federal firearms regulation and law by specific mention, including on Form 4473 in question 11(e), rendering it no different than any other non-controlled substance.

That's it.

So who has the balls to introduce that, champion it and force it through the President's desk?

Do it now -- before the midterm elections.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)