The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
Don't Do It Lennar -- Talk To Me Instead

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.


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.

2018-05-21 09:17 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 275 references
[Comments enabled]  

Social policy changes have a real impact.

It takes time, but it's real.  It's not "fake news", and demographics are, ultimately, destiny.

So I read this article with some bemusement.

Americans and Europeans are abandoning parenthood at an alarming rate, profoundly changing the nature of our societies, our politics and our cultures.

Last year, women in the U.S. had children at the lowest rate ever recorded. There were just 60.2 births for every 1,000 girls and women ages 15 to 44 in our country. As a result, there were fewer births in America last year – 3.85 million babies – than at any time since 1987. This was a 2 percent drop from 2016.

What's even worse is the demographic split between those women who have children and those who choose not to.  There's a roughly 50% difference in birth rate between families with incomes under $10,000 and those over $200,000, and a 25% difference between those who pay no income tax and those who pay any amount.

For 30+ years the "answer" from the crazies on both the left and right is immigration.  But not just any immigration -- immigrants from turd-world ****holes that like to make lots of babies.

Never once will either side of the aisle discuss why the deterioration in birth rate is occurring.

There is no singular answer but there are plenty of good reasons, all of which follow the general societal rule that whatever you punish through policy you will get less of, and whatever you reward you will get more of.  Our government also does its level damned best to ignore biology in the name of "diversity" and not only "tolerance" but forced acceptance.

Women and men are different.  Denying this is to deny scientific fact.  It requires nine months of choice for a woman to give birth to a child but only nine seconds for a man to sire one.  Women have always been the gatekeepers for consensual sexual congress that has the potential to produce children and always shall be because they possess a uterus and men do not.

If you want a robust birth rate that is at least sufficient to maintain a population, spread reasonably-evenly across the bell-curve of innate ability (e.g. intelligence) you must account for this difference through social structure so both men and women have good cause to not only produce said children but do so in productive households such that the outcome is children who grow into productive, independent adults.

Indeed your social structure should provide incentives for those productive household structures and disincentives for those proven to be unproductive.

But there is not only zero recognition of this fact there is outright hostility to it.

The social structures of 100 years ago were not perfect by any means and there were plenty of abuses contained within them.  But we didn't fix the abuses -- we trashed the structures instead in the name of "tolerance" and "choice."

If you want productive couples to form and produce children in stable family households then you have to account for the differences in biological contributions and adjust for them through social structure.

Today it is literally impossible for a man to decide he wants a family and find a woman to construct a social microcosm with called a "family" that gives him a reasonable assurance that (1) he can be and remain an integral, daily participant in having and raising said children and (2) he, his paramour and said children can have a reasonable place to live with the full-time contribution of one of the two adults to the raising of said children on a personal basis.

It is also impossible for a women who wants a family in most cases to do so under those same terms as well.  Said woman has zero means of constructing a social microcosm odds-on to do that in 90+% of the cases beginning with the destruction of the ability of a one-income household to make it work for most people in most areas of the country.

In short it is flat-out impossible in many if not most parts of the country for most couples to have and raise children on one income.  It is further flat-out impossible to put together a social structure that provides strong incentives for said two-parent, one-income home to remain that way through the childhood of those kids.

Marriage is called a contract but it is not.  It used to be, both socially and legally, but that hasn't been true for decades.

That some people continue to believe in traditions is why we have any sort of family structure remaining at all.  Yet many of those people find themselves with zero incentive to be reasonable say much less nice because if things go sideways and they don't get their way all the time they can make life intolerable for the other party and not lose if the other person walks out!

So what incentive is there to not do that?

Further, the greater your intelligence and the less you are steeped in said traditions the more likely you will figure this out before you produce kids rather than later on, and even if not if you have that happen to you after the first child shows up the odds of you doing it again drop to near-zero!

Well there you go and yet nobody will discuss this in the media nor in social circles because as soon as you bring any of this up your a "racist", you're a misogynist, etc.  The only exception is those who argue that it's about "the lack of God" in our country but that's a horsecrap chimera; people choose their religion (or lack thereof) and thus you had better find a better excuse (and solution) or the death of said society is assured.

My parents generation are all dying; it happens to every one of us eventually.  They were the last generation that dealt with the former social structure as the primary, and solidly positive choice, during their child-bearing years.  The erosion didn't happen overnight and neither did the drop in birth rate.

But unless there's a major change in the offing now in said social structures -- and that requires that people cut the crap with the name-calling and deal with reality and how to fix it within the next couple of generations we're ****ed, and not just here but across Europe as well because it will only be the imported crazies with no skills who will continue to pop out kids like rabbits and those children will be just as nuts as their parents are.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-04-24 09:35 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 278 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)