The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Editorial]
2017-04-22 17:03 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 843 references
[Comments enabled]  

Let's cut the crap, shall we?

This is scientific fact. It is a record of history showing temperatures and CO2 levels.  You will note that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 level.  In fact, there appears to be an inverse correlation in many (but not all) instances.

I remind you that the basic truth of science when it comes to correlation and causation is as follows:

1. Correlation can never prove causation.  It can only suggest that it might be true.

2. The inverse of correlation, however, strongly indicates that causation is absent if it occurs just once.

Well, it has been inverted when we're talking about CO2 and temperature -- and far more often than once.

In the Precambrian era CO2 concentrations fell quite a bit while temperatures rose.  In the Silurian period, same.  In the Carboniferous period, again.  At the end of the Jurasic period, again temperatures went up while CO2 levels fell.  Finally, at the exit of the Jurasic period CO2 went up while temperature slowly fell; we believe that happened due to a large asteroid impact (which would make sense as to the step function) but the continued fall in temperatures does not correlate with a further rise in CO2 -- until the exit of the Paleocene epoch.

There was a correlated rise in the Miocene epoch.  But then we saw changes in temperature -- both up and down -- with a nearly-constant CO2 concentration.

Is there scientific evidence that CO2 levels cause global temperature change?  No.  The science says otherwise absent specific and detailed means of disproving why that correlation has been so-often not only absent but inverted.

Is it likely that CO2 levels cause "forcing" of climate change?  No.  Not only is there no correlation history that supports such a belief CO2 is 0.05% of the atmosphere, roughly.  Only a small fraction of all CO2 is man-made; the rest occurs naturally from respiration of animals, decay of organic material, volcanic activity and combustion not initiated by man.  In addition the oceans contain a monstrous amount of CO2 encapsulated in carbonates; this is a buffering reaction and anyone who has studied chemistry at all knows that the equilibrium point is driven by temperature, not the other way around.  Therefore the argument must not be over whether CO2 is involved but whether the small fraction of CO2 that man controls is the causative factor.  There simply is no science to support a claim that it is and plenty of evidence that CO2 is either reactive to temperature or may even be inversely correlated over sufficient time scales for the effect to show up.

It is a scientific fact that in the last ~100,000 years or so we've lived in a generally warming climate cycle and yet human-emitted CO2 has only been on the scene in material quantity for the last couple hundred years.  There have been little excursions in temperature the other way during this cycle; the Maunder Minimum is of note and they were bad news for humans.  You might want to keep that in mind because colder temperatures kill people faster and with greater certainty than hotter ones, specifically by damaging crop yields.

For those who argue that sea level rise is a horrifyingly bad outcome I will point to the Timber Holes; in the current cycle sea level has risen some four hundred feet.  This location, roughly 15 miles offshore Destin, is in about 110' of water today and I have personally dove it to spearfish.  It's a limestone bottom pock-marked with old holes where trees once stood but have long rotted away.  Well, when sea level was 400' lower than it is today it's not hard to figure out why trees were there given this set of facts.  Incidentally there's a drowned spring off Tampa in a couple hundred feet of water that still flows as well.  It used to flow onto dry land.  I've not dove that one; it's a monster dive due to its depth, especially inward beyond the rim and is a long run offshore as well.  I will note for the record that the current sea level rise is measured in inches while the historical, current-period rise has been measured in hundreds of feet.  If the current trend is continuing arguing over inches while hundreds of feet are in play is stupid.  In short if you think that cycle has materially further to run in your lifetime or that of your children (not in times measured in thousands of years) you damn well better get away from anywhere that's less than a few dozen to a couple hundred feet above sea level because there sure as hell were no SUVs 100,000 years ago!

Is the earth getting warming?  Yes, by a small amount.  For how much longer?  I don't know; in geological terms it's anyone's guess. We can assume that the current Quaternary period environment will persist, but we don't know it will persist.  If it stops persisting, incidentally, it will probably not be determinable for a hell of a long time -- tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands or more years into the future.  We'll all be long dead and so will our children, grandchildren and many generations yet to come.

In human life terms is the cycle about to end?  Probably not, but that doesn't mean much since small fluctuations over the last half-million years or so -- 2 degrees Celsius or thereabouts -- have been pretty common and some of them have come very rapidly.

Are the odds that the next excursion will be down greater than up?  The history of the Quaternary period says probably, but it's a bad bet simply because over short period of time the bet's bad no matter which way you take it.  If the excursion is down it will kill a hell of a lot more people than some more warming will; we need only look to the last couple of those excursions for examples.  While we have far better agricultural technology today we also have a hell of a lot more people on this rock relying on same.  A 10% global casualty rate from a Maunder-minimum type of event is not at all unreasonable to expect.

Now let's look at the other evidence.

1. The "climate models" have thus far all been wrong. They all predicted both far greater temperature and sea level rises than have occurred.  Wrong is wrong, end of discussion.

2. The data has been tampered with.  That's not conjecture or belief it's fact.  It was admitted to and when the source code break-in happened a few years ago I trivially found the "adjustments" they put into the code.  That was intentional tampering, not an accident, and removing it removes the so-called "hockey stick."

3. The prediction of more and more-violent Atlantic hurricanes has been falsified.  We were all told in the time of Ivan, Katrina and Wilma that we were in for those sorts of storms and even more-violent ones in the years to come.  Well, it's been 11 years since a major hurricane hit the United States anywhere.  Hermine hit Florida last year but it was a Cat 1 -- hardly anything to get excited about and an utterly routine event.  During the early 2000s Cat 1s were about as common as cats around here to the point that I didn't bother doing much more than taking in the lawn furniture when one was approaching.

4. The 1880s were the most-violent decade for the United States in terms of hurricane impacts; 25 hit the nation.  How many SUVs were in use in the 1880s?  Since 2010 there have been six hurricane impacts; for comparison the decade of the 2000-2009 recorded 19.  We are way behind the so-called prognosticators of doom.

5. The prediction of more and more-violent Tornadoes in the US has also been falsified.  There has been no statistical increase and in fact of F3+ storms (the worst) there was much more activity in the 1950s and 60s than now, with several real doozy years -- two of which recorded over 100 of these extremely-violent storms.  By comparison 2012, 2013 and 2014 clocked in under 30.  While 2011 was a bad year for tornadoes it was hardly unprecedented -- 1973 recorded nearly as many.  Again, there's no particular trend despite the claim that we would see more and more-violent storms of this nature as well.

6. The claims of "more and more-serious drought" sounded pretty good out in California right up until this winter when it snowed like a bitch.  So much for that.  We'll see if that's a one-off or not in the coming years.

In short all these claims have just been plain old-fashioned wrong.

Now let's look at the other side.

We've massively improved the number of people on this planet and roughly tripled life-expectancy -- almost-exactly correlated with the industrial extraction and consumption of carbon-based fuels.  Would you like to give both of those up in exchange for, perhaps, a bit less warming but no fewer storms and a sea level that is continuing to rise?


Oh, and let's assume that the sea level does continue to rise.  Would you like to have the energy resources to move people and build barriers and employ other mitigating technologies when that occurs?  Or would you like to give up those resources?

Without carbon-based energy there would be no trucks bringing food to stores.  There would be no commercial agriculture; commercial fertilizer production requires natural gas as a feedstock and modern agricultural machinery runs on carbon-based fuels. Half the planet would not be alive because the people could not be fed without it.  Life expectancy would be 20% or more reduced from what it is now for those who remain.  When storms hit there would be no trucks to bring relief supplies including food and water -- thousands of people would die from thirst and disease caused by the inability to quickly repair power and water-processing infrastructure.  Instead we count the dead after tornadoes and hurricanes on our fingers.  I remind you that it wasn't that long ago -- before our efficient use of carbon-based fuels -- that we added several zeros to those counts.

So, on this "Earth Day" what do we have?

We have a bunch of screaming harpies that ignore actual science and lie for political purposes, but they sure as hell expect all the comforts of modern life -- a life that is inexorably powered by carbon-based fuels, directly and indirectly, like it or not.

Take away those fuels and there is no food in the grocery store, your car doesn't run, your Tesla can't be charged, your air conditioner doesn't work and neither does your furnace.  Your lights work a couple of hours a day -- maybe.  Your life expectancy is cut by 20 years or more because the first time you have an emergency there is no ambulance to come get you nor any advanced operating theater to fix the holes in you after some horrible accident.  Disease is far more-prevalent than today and spreads like wildfire among any populated area since sanitation to modern standards is impossible.  The very chlorine dioxide that keeps your drinking water safe is impossible to manufacture as it relies on methanol and sulfuric acid, both chemicals that require modern industrial processes to produce safely and in volume and the precursor (sodium chlorate) requires electrolysis of salt under controlled conditions.  (PS: The emergency oxygen generator in an airliner that powers those drop-down masks, which incidentally requires carbon-based fuel to fly, also requires this material.)

Oh, and on the evidence the temperature will probably continue to go up a bit for a while, as will the sea level.  Exactly when will the present cycle end and at what temperature rise?  I have no idea, but end it will, probably after I'm long dead -- although it's always possible we get a major sunspot minimum in the next 5, 10 or 20 years and if we do things could get quite sporty -- on the cold side.

If you're dumb enough to be one of those marchers or "protesters" today then you have either a vacuum or granite between your ears.  In either case you're stupid, dangerous or both -- and deserve to reap the consequences of your demands.

May that outcome visit you and not to the rest of us who actually believe in science.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2017-04-21 05:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 208 references
[Comments enabled]  

You have to love The Atlantic and their "slant" on alleged "news":

Brick-and-mortar retail is having a meltdown, and economists are starting to see the effects in the job market.

Overall retail employment has fallen every month this year. Department stores, including Macy’s and JC Penney, have shed nearly 100,000 jobs since October—more than the total number of coal miners or steel workers currently employed in the U.S. Even America’s richest areas are getting hit: Employment in New York City clothing stores has fallen three years in a row, the longest period of decline on record, going back to the early 1990s.

Of course the lamentation is that unlike the coal industry (or manufacturing) there's been no political promise (empty or otherwise) to do something about this one.

Well, yeah.

Why does this shock you?

Who owns a major mainstream media outlet?  That's not the same guy who runs Amazon, is it?

And of course The Atlantic tries to make it appear that there's a racism element to it too: Manufacturing is, of course, "white men" while retail is not so-concentrated, ergo, they're all sexist and racist bastards in the medial the DC and that's why they won't report on the job loss.

But the decline of clothing-store jobs has something in common with the demise of manufacturing and mining jobs, too. They are both victims of the familiar forces of globalization and technology, which have conspired to make clothes cheaper and accessible online. 

Really?  This just started recently?  How long ago did all the textile jobs leave South Carolina?


And of course they try to claim that the losses are offset by distribution center employment.  Maybe, but there's a critical difference: You can't really replace a clerk in a store with a robot, or at least not very effectively.  But Amazon can and is mightily trying to replace employees with robotic systems -- and that will continue.  In other words the distribution center "jobs" are mostly temporary, even if "temporary" means "good for a year or three."

And, of course, The Atlantic pulls out the standard nostrums of socialism: "Universal" health care not tied to a company, etc.  I note most particularly that there is not one word about the ridiculous proliferation of monopolist behavior in that industry without which there'd be no need for "insurance" in virtually every instance at all.

But no!  We can't have that.  We can't have The Rule of Law and we can't do things that, well, make prices cheaper when it comes to those areas of pain that everyone is taking these days -- including displaced retail workers.

It is much harder to say the truth: Technology and trade make America richer as a country, but the winnings are distributed unevenly, and it’s the responsibility of government to improve the distribution without making everybody poorer in the process.

Technology maybe, trade frequently not.  Trade frequently takes the winnings and gives them to the Chinese and Mexicans.

Now exactly how is the government supposed to "improve the distribution" when it's no longer here?

Unless, of course, they're suggesting that we start using all that military hardware we have laying around.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2017-04-15 08:22 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 1195 references
[Comments enabled]  

Oh sure, there are things you can point at when it comes to a Trump Presidency and say "that's better than it was."

For example, illegal invaders.  No, folks, they're not immigrants.  They're criminal invaders. You may love one, you may live with one or more, they may have come here just wanting a better life but the fact is that their first act was to violate the law of this nation and they did it to access the wealth and benefits of this nation -- in other words, with the intent to steal that to which they were not entitled to.

There's a legal way to come and live in the United States.  It happens to be somewhat selective, and with good reason.  Nations do not exist without borders, a common language and a common culture.  No nation is or ever should be obligated to modify any of those three for someone who is not a citizen and wishes to come -- it's the other way around, and the reason nations have immigration laws is to provide some assurance that those who come will change their behavior to respect said border and assimilate into the existing language and culture.

If you want to see what happens when you don't respect that I direct you to the fine doctor lady now under arrest in Michigan who is accused of mutilating girl's genitals for religious reasons, otherwise known as female genital mutilation.  Would you care to guess her religious affiliation?

It is exactly this sort of event that highlights why nations have every reason to impose constraints on immigration.  No, those constraints aren't perfect, and no, not everyone who refuses to accede to cultural norms is an immigrant.  But that's why these laws are not only Constitutional they're also both reasonable and necessary.

Unless, of course, you like the idea of having your daughter's clitoris cut off.

Further, don't try to run that crap about how "they've been here for so long and put down such roots" that they're entitled to stay.  Wrong again.  That someone happens to be a good bank robber (that is, they don't get caught) for years makes their offense more-serious, not less-so.  Every day a person is here on an unauthorized basis and both accesses and benefits from the capital and sweat equity investment in this nation unlawfully is a separate and distinct offense.  To attempt to lever sympathy through other interpersonal interactions (or worse, creating children who had no knowledge of what you were doing in the first instance) is an aggravating, not mitigating, circumstance.

Let's leave this one behind for now, because on any rational analysis enforcement of immigration laws is good, not bad.

I prefer to move to the bad for the time being.

Like, for instance, what certainly appears to be Racketeering in the House on both sides of the aisle when it comes to how Congress conducts itself.

See, it has come to light (and in fact did several years ago, but has recently been reconfirmed) that in order to get a seat on a committee you must raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the party.  To keep it you must continue to do so on a recurring, annual basis.  The better the committee or the more-important the seat (e.g. the chair, vice-chair, etc) the more money you must raise.

If you recall it is rather illegal to bribe people in most instances.  Well, what's this folks?  And these aren't "one-off" bribes either they are formal political structures that the party leadership not only permits it created and enforces them.

What do you call that?  I call it Racketeering.

What has Trump said about that?  Nothing.


What has Jeff Sessions, his Attorney General and formerly a Senator (oops) said about it?


Gee, I wonder why?  I wonder where the indictments are?

Let me remind you that it is illegal for any government official to ask for, demand, solicit or accept anything of value in return for altering the performance of one's duties in any way.

There is no exception that says it's ok if the money comes from other people and is paid to the political party instead of an individual official.

It's rather clear, really -- you can find the law right here in 18 USC Section 201:


(1)directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—

(A)to influence any official act; or
(B)to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

(2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

(A)being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B)being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

(3)directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

(4)directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

That's pretty clear.  Do you see a "this law doesn't apply to member of Congress being required to raise money for the party in order to sit on a congressional committee"?

I don't.

Where's the mainstream media coverage of this?  There have been a few "tongue slips" that I've heard on the air in the last couple of months (itself a revelation) but interestingly enough, Google can't find them.  Gee, I wonder if Google might be complicit in removing any search indexing on such things?  Naw, there's no reason to worry about big, data-centric search engines in that regard, right?  Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook -- none of them have a reason to shovel dirt over the record and try to obscure things, do they -- especially when it's publicly-uttered admissions of brazen lawlessness in Washington DC.....

Trump was going to drain the swamp eh?  Uh huh.  Sure he is.

And then of course there's health care.  You want a swamp, there's a swamp.  One dollar in five spent in the country, 37% of every dollar spent last fiscal year by the Federal Government and 80% of both are spent due to inflated prices created by various forms of price-fixing and monopoly behavior all of which is supposed to be illegal under long-standing federal law and, I remind you, the "industry" has twice been to the Supreme Court to try to go around those laws and lost both times.

So where, once again, are the indictments?

Uh huh.

Quit talking about Trump "draining the swamp."  He in fact scammed everyone in this nation right into the Presidency.  Save me the bleating from the left about Hillary, by the way -- she was worse.

Let me remind you that since I'm a former CEO I know damn well what the scam is in the Health industry, because I had to deal with it when it came to benefits for my employees.  This means Trump knows it well too.  And while I didn't know until fairly recently how corrupt the committee system was in Congress or that it was blatantly organized and in quite-clear violation of long-standing Federal Law, I do now and so does Trump.

And finally, it is the Executive that enforces laws.

So where is the enforcement that you swore on the Bible you would uphold and undertake, jackass?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2017-04-11 08:30 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 477 references
[Comments enabled]  

I'm sure by now you've heard of the latest incident of corporate thuggery on a United Flight.

United, you see, had a full plane.  They also had failed to plan and needed to get some of their employees to a location where said plane was going.  Having offered up to $800 for people to give up their seats and finding no takers, they then forcibly removed passengers so their failure to plan could be rescued at other people's expense.  One of those removals went poorly when said passenger refused.

First, let's dispense with the legalities -- airline "contracts of adhesion" allow them to do this.  And yes, they are contracts of adhesion.  That is, you can't negotiate them, they're "take it or leave it" and they're all essentially identical.  Contracts of adhesion ought to be unenforceable when adverse to you, but they're not in today's world.

Second, once seated you damn well ought to be, well, seated.  There is a point beyond which your contract to get from A->B should be confirmed and it's definitely beyond the point where you are in your seat and belted in, as was the case here.

Third, the airline should, if they fail to plan properly and thus have sold more seats than they have, and especially when the reason they have too few seats is their own failure to plan to get their crews where they need them, be forced to pay the market price for those seats.  Said price might be very high, but there is a price at which people will choose to voluntarily get off the aircraft.  What is that price?  Nobody knows until the offer is hit but the price of failure to plan ought to be the market price, and in a just world it would be.  Will that be expensive for the airline?  Yep.  So what?  That is the check and balance on not doing stupid things -- like selling more seats than you have.

Fourth, it is illegal for me to threaten to, or actually use, criminal sanction to settle a civil dispute.  In fact it's a felony to do so.  Why isn't United under criminal indictment right now for calling in the cops and having them use force at a criminal level to resolve what was a civil issue?  Denying someone boarding before they get on the plane is an entirely different thing as you're not physically using force to make them leave; if force comes into the game in that situation it's the passenger who initiates it by rushing the gate.  At the point the airline has boarded and seated you their opportunity has passed absent you committing a criminal act, and sitting in your seat that they assigned you doesn't get there.

This is really just another example of we the people tolerating ridiculous abuse at the hands of "corporations."  We allow this every day -- we allow a "doctor" to refuse to give us a price before they perform a surgery, we allow a hospital to present blanket consents that are considered "legally valid" after drugging you while if you do the same thing in a bar we call the sex that results rape, we allow an airline to sell more seats than they have which is in fact an act of fraud since they can't fulfill the agreement they made, we allow hotel companies to quote "prices" that do not include taxes and other fees in the price which you only find out after making a selection and more.  Indeed when it comes to airlines the pricing games are even more-ridiculous; the "price" doesn't include, in many cases, a handbag you carry with you as some of them now charge for carry-on luggage, say much less checked bags and none of them include the taxes and fees in their fare quotes.

In the so-called "leisure" world the fees and taxes are often ridiculous multiples of the common sales tax.  I know what the sales tax is in my area and it's easy to figure out what it is in most places.  However, "bed taxes", "TSA fees" and similar often mean that if you get a hotel room you pay two or even three times the base sales tax rate and if you buy an airline ticket the fees might be 30% or even more of the fare and yet none of that is quoted in advertising -- nor until after you make a selection.

Knowing all that in advance and applying general consumer protection laws that provide that a quoted price must be the actual price would mean that now I might choose to stay in one town instead of another because one imposes such taxes and the other does not.  I might choose one means of transportation over another because one imposes such fees and taxes but the other does not.  It's nearly impossible to fairly compare these things today but it should not be; everyone should have to post a price and that ought to be the full and complete price, to the penny.

Why do we allow any of this?

Why do we not immediately, through lawful means, "burn these businesses to the ground" -- by boycotting not only them but everyone who works for them?

Oh, you "need" to fly, you say?  Uh, no you don't.  Make those tin cans worth zero by refusing to get in one.

Oh, you "need" a doctor?  Well, perhaps in some circumstances you're unable to shop and consent (e.g. you just had a heart attack) but in many others that is not true; you could, upon being refused a binding price, not only refuse to do business with said physician you could refuse to have anything to do with him or her and anyone he or she employs anywhere, up to and including refusing to sit in the same pew with them in church!

Why should we allow various online sites to quote us hotel, event ticket and other prices without the taxes and fees included?  They know damn well what the taxes and fees are when they present a price so why don't we insist that they all be included so we can compare?

There's utterly no excuse for this sort of thing but the fact of the matter is that we, the people get this kind of treatment because we allow it.

Should United be financially destroyed over this by customers refusing to do business with them?  Yes.

But they, and all the other firms that pull this crap every single day, should have been destroyed years or even decades ago when they first started refusing to actually honor what was allegedly "offered" at the price given -- whether it be through this sort of "involuntary denied carriage" or through posting a price that the seller knows is false because it does not include mandatory taxes and fees that they will, in every case, demand you pay and they add on.

And oh, by the way, if United can employ violence when they don't like the price presented to them to voluntarily get their way why is it that the rest of us should not take exactly the same position and employ the same remedy when we don't like the price of a ticket, a hotel room, a doctor visit or a car?

As for United, I have a simple reply for their corporate failure to plan and then foisting the cost of that failure on others, whether "legal" or not:


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2017-04-05 11:45 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 508 references
[Comments enabled]  

Stop the inane folks.

Seriously, stop it.

I want you to take just a few minutes and listen to this.  I've conveniently set the time to where the salient portion is in my presentation (Youtube's "time selector" has some slop in it on replay due to buffering, but it's very close):

That's a roughly hour-long talk I gave in 2012. Health Care including VA (which I exclude in my current postings) was $850 billion in 2012.

Last fiscal was $1,417 billion or nearly a double in five years.  That's the same acceleration in spending that has been going on since the 1980s.

This cannot continue.  It must stop now.  I have been writing on this incessantly since 2007 here in The Market Ticker, been raising hell about it since I was an Internet CEO in the 1990s and been doing presentations on it to so-called Conservative groups through most of that time, including this one in Orlando in 2012.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going la-la-la-la-la-la-Trump-La-la-Trump-la-PlannedParenthood-la-la is going to get you and your children killed if you have any sort of medical issue whatsoever in the next five to ten years.

Social Security has exactly zero to do with the impending insolvency of the Federal Government, as I've repeatedly pointed out and the CBO has now underlined.

 by tickerguy

It is this exponential explosion in debt that was clearly going to happen in the 1990s, that I was talking about in the above presentation and now it's staring us in the face as we are entering the portion of the curve where it goes straight up.

This is all Health Care as I have been saying for decades and presenting to anyone who cares to listen in multiple public speeches, including this one.  The trend has been maintained despite Obamacare's passage, despite lots of bleating by the Congress, despite the so-called "Make America Great Again" and more.

America will not only fail to become "great again" it will collapse on a fiscal basis and so will the economy if this is not stopped now.

We have less than five years.  Not to talk about it, not to start it but to completely and permanently put a stop to and return it to historical norms -- which is about 1/5th of today's spending levels.

We had 30 years, then 20, and when the above presentation was made we had 10 years.

We squandered all of that time and opportunity.

We decided that "Guns, Gays and God" were more important than mathematical laws that guarantee outcomes.  We decided that fighting over Planned Parenthood was more important than destroying the economy that every child in this country has to live in just a few short years down the road -- both the children here today and to be born tomorrow.

Folks, we either cut this crap out right here, right now, today or this nation dies.  It dies fiscally, it dies economically, millions will die physically and the odds of ridiculous levels of unrest and violence typical of places like Venezuela is far too high for anyone to rationally accept.

So here's the deal: If we're not going to make progress because nobody will stand and demand that the politicians stop this crap right now, and enforce that demand through whatever peaceful acts are necessary up to and including a general strike then everyone may as well put their middle finger up and go enjoy the next five years while there's something left in America to enjoy.

Just make sure, if you're going to do that or sit on your ass and cheer on Netflix, Facebook and Amazon that you're ok with your kids being screwed or dead along with yourself -- because that's exactly what's going to happen if we don't act now.

Not in five years, not next year, not next month, not "after tax cuts" or "after Trump does X" or even "after we impeach Trump" (if you're a Democrat.)

It has to happen now, not during some mythical tomorrow which is always promised by the political class and yet that "tomorrow" never comes.

The answer is found here and here.

"Do or do not -- there is no try" - Yoda

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice!" - Rush, Free Will

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
The Bill To Permanently Fix Health Care For All

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access

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.