The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
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.

2019-06-16 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 311 references
[Comments enabled]  

How about we cut the bullcrap eh?

Most early abortions are "medical" nowdays.  That is, RU-486; two-drug cocktail, take one, then the next.  Done.  Nearly fully effective.

What does Planned Parenthood charge for this?  About $1,000.  For two pills.

What's it really cost?  About $100.

Including the consult.

In other words they're ****ing women.  In the ass.

So.... if you support "a woman's right to choose" why don't you burn all these **********s who are ripping you off to the tune of 1,000% to the ground?

Tell me why the answer to this isn't found in the Internet and there's no reason for "Planned Parent****ass" to exist at all?

Think I'm kidding?  Well, no.  I'm not.

You think the people on the left are really about protecting women?  Bull****.  They're about robbing you.  Just like everyone else in the medical field.

**** 'em.

Read that link.  You can get the drugs online, now, for about $100.

As for "Planned Parenthood"?  They need to be destroyed; if you're on the "pro life" side of this issue they're murderers.  If you're on the pro-choice side they're financial rapists, charging women 10x what the drugs cost.  Their interest is not in women's health, it's money.

I don't care which side of the issue you're on -- you cannot support these **********s.

Period.

Happy Father's Day.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



2019-06-10 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 150 references
[Comments enabled]  

Now let's talk drugs for a minute -- along with the jackassery in both the States and Washington DC.

Everyone is outraged about the number of opioid deaths -- and the peddling of synthetics, such as fentanyl.  In fact I can make a pretty clean argument for closing the Mexican border and nuking Beijing on that alone.  But..... how about something more-mundane?

30% -- or about 1 in 3 American adults -- don't drink at all.  20% more have less than one drink a month.  The next decile (10%) consume about one drink every two weeks.

The next 10% consume about one drink every three days; odds are they have them both in a given week on one day, probably Friday.  The next 10% (we've now accounted for 80% of adults) have slightly less than one drink a day.

Now it gets interesting.  The second-to-top 10% consume about 15 drinks weekly, or about two a day.  This is the limit, according to physicians and such, for alcohol consumption that is generally not (all that) harmful.  I have news for you -- as I've reported here before, I can, from the physiological data off my Garmin, tell you on which days I've had one drink, two drinks, or more.  So if you say it doesn't do any harm with the first one, well, yes it does.  And so does the second.

But the top decile -- the top 10% , which incidentally means more than 20 million Americans -- consume an unbelievable 73 drinks a week or more than 10 a day, on average, every day.

To put this in perspective if you add up all the drinks the other consume you get about a third of those that these people consume.  That's right -- 3/4 of all alcohol consumed goes down the gullet of 1/10th of the American adult population.

73 drinks is over 7,000 calories a week as a result of alcohol consumption or more than 1,000 a day.  That's enough to put on more than two pounds a week, all other things being equal.  Put another way the average sedentary person who is drinking that much is consuming roughly 60% of their caloric requirement in alcohol alone; if that booze is being consumed in the form of beer or mixed drinks that contain sugar in their mixers it's even worse, likely 2-3x as bad!

ALL of these people are raging alcoholics.  ALL of these people are either outrageously obese or nutritionally deficit at a level sufficient to do very serious metabolic damage or kill them, not counting the damage from the alcohol itself.

BUT MORE TO THE POINT EVERY SINGLE PRODUCER AND SELLER OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IS BOTH UTTERLY RELIANT ON SUCH PEOPLE TO SURVIVE IN BUSINESS AND THUS THEY ARE ALL AIMING THEIR ADVERTISING AND MARKETING EXPENSE AT THEM -- THEY HAVE TO IN ORDER TO STAY IN BUSINESS.

I personally do not care if you are (1) an adult and (2) wish to drug yourself to death.

But -- I refuse to sit quietly for the hypocrisy both from politicians who bitch and whine about far less dangerous drugs than alcohol (e.g. marijuana and especially CBD, which has no known intoxicating effect) while at the same time there is a store on every single corner that intentionally stocks, markets to and sells dangerous drugs that they known damn well are, 75% of the time by volume, going into the gullet of people who are committing slow suicide.

Further, while you certainly have the right to commit suicide, whether slowly or not, you don't have the right to demand that I pay for it.

What shocks me in these statistics, however, is that it's 10% of the population.  I knew two people who have drank themselves to death, am absolutely certain that's both what killed them and have no trouble believing they were consuming 70 drinks a week.  But what these statistics say is that this is an amazingly common thing.  1 in 10 American adults?!  Seriously?  1 in 10 adults in America are clinically alcoholic and well on their way to killing themselves by being so?

Well now that does put some perspective on things, does it not?

It also puts perspective on state and federal government activities related to various drugs -- including a whole host of them that are illegal, yet clearly are less-harmful than booze is.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-06-04 08:26 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 194 references
[Comments enabled]  

Oh bullcrap.

Caster Semenya won an interim ruling in her battle against the IAAF when the Swiss supreme court ordered athletics’ governing body to suspend its testosterone regulations on Monday, raising the prospect of her competing at the world championships without having to take hormone suppressing medication.

...

The IAAF rules apply to female athletes with medical conditions known as “differences of sex development” (DSD) and specifically those born with the typical male XY chromosome pattern. The athletes also have testosterone levels higher than the typical female range, which the IAAF argues gives them an unfair athletic advantage over other women because the hormone helps build muscle and increases oxygen levels in the blood.

This person is not a "her".

Folks, it is not about whether you have testicles.

It is chromosomal and goes all the way back to birth.

Semenya is a man.  Period.  There is nothing that can be done about it; that chromosomal set was present at conception and cannot be changed.  It has given this individual athletic capabilities that are far beyond that of any actual woman and there's nothing that can be done about that either, because a good percentage of those advantages were conferred before Semenya even contemplated athletic competition.

This insanity is flat-out outrageous.  A tiny percentage of people have this disorder; they have an XY chromosomal pattern but do not develop external genitalia consistent with men.  It doesn't matter; that person is genetically a man.

I don't care how you costume yourself to others.  If you feel you got a raw deal in the genetic lottery, so be it.  You're destined to perpetual misery if you go down this road, but that's on you.  It is no more or less than me being unhappy because I was not born a UK Royal and thus don't have instant and perpetual access to the billions that the Royal Family has as their property, never mind the prestige and ability to attract all sorts of very beautiful women to do my bidding.

If I was black and wished I was white, same deal.  If I wished I was Asian because I like their facial and body structure, same deal.  I can have cosmetic changes performed, whether I do it with make-up or go so far as to actually start cutting things off and putting things on surgically, but none of that will change my genetics.

There's an article in the Spectator on this as well.

Titled “Young Trans Children Know Who They Are,” the piece focused on transgender children — those of whom identify as a different gender from the one they were assigned at birth. Ed Yang, the author of the piece, argues that, from an early age, children already have a strong sense of identity. He contends that some children as young as three already have a strong sense of their identity. If a three-year-old boy tells his parents that he identifies as a girl, Mommy and Daddy shouldn’t just listen, they should consider gender reassignment surgery. After all, although he is only three, the boy clearly knows what he wants.

As is pointed out in that article that entire premise is a load of crap.

I remember my childhood.  Many do not, but I do.  All the way back to early single digits.  Childhood is full of fantasies; exploration of that which is not, and is all about the feels.  It's normal, it's how a child's brain works and there's nothing wrong with it.

Except that it's not real and one of the purposes of being raised by adults is for those adult(s) in your life to provide guidance as to what is real.

Just last night at Run Club I was part of a conversation with a parent who had a kid that identified repeatedly, during their young childhood, as a horse.  She's now a healthy and normal young woman; she was never a horse, of course.

What's the difference between that, prancing around on all fours as a kid and declaring that you're a boy?  Nothing.

Both are fantasies.  Neither is actually true.  Neither is harmful unless it's indulged by the adults in your life and permanent changes are made that you cannot undo when the rest of your brain "comes online" and your fantasies are recognized as just that -- fantasies.

Everyone is unhappy about something in their genetic makeup.  For some it's their face.  For some women it's the size of their breasts -- they either think they're too big or too small.  Some others don't like the look of their labia.  Some men would like a bigger penis, and some a smaller one.  Some men wish they were "wooly" and some who are wish they were not.  Some men and women are bent about their hair color, and of them some go to great lengths to change it -- repeatedly -- throughout their life.  As men get even a bit older some get bent about the fact that they start to go bald and spend thousands or more transplanting hair and using drugs to try to change that.  Some people are short and wish they were tall, and some who are tall wish they were short.

Men and women both have their particular preferences when it comes to partners.  Some of those preferences are emotional and some are physical.  I have mine and so does everyone else, and it's not just "I'm heterosexual so therefore I like women" either.  A woman with certain physical traits is more attractive to me.  That doesn't mean I haven't and won't date a woman that is missing some of those traits, because on balance there's much more to someone than physical characteristics.  But it matters on the margin, and on the extreme other side sufficient to push my "not attractive" button it's enough to be exclusionary.

Exploiting these genetic differences to call yourself that what you're not, when it confers a physical advantage, especially in athletics, is bull****.  It's cheating and anyone doing it should be permanently barred from competition.  Period.  Notice that nobody goes the other way; where are all the girls who want to run on the guys track team?  It is always MEN demanding to compete as a WOMAN, not the other way around.

These are NOT girls or women -- they're MEN.  Period.  If you have an XY sex chromosome pair you are male irrespective of your external genitalia, what drugs you consume or what surgery you undergo.  If you're XX you are female irrespective of your external genitalia, the presence of developed breasts or whether you have functional ovaries and a uterus or not.  I do not give a flying **** what cosmetic decisions you make but you cannot change your sex -- it's immutable from the fertilization of the embryo that turned into you.

This bull**** must stop or it's literally the end of women's sports.  If you think not, and that this garbage is "balanced" in both directions and not an intentional act of cheating then show me the list of genetic girls -- XX chromosome -- who think they're guys and are competing on men's teams.

Go ahead -- I dare you to find said individuals -- and if not then you may as well admit it -- you're a lying sack of crap.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-06-03 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 442 references
[Comments enabled]  

Well look what the cat dragged in...

From 1620 to 1970, the U.S. was demographically stable  -- not to be confused with "a nation of immigrants." The country was about 85% to 90% white, almost entirely British, German, French and Dutch, and 10% to 15% African American. (The American Indian population, technically in their own nations, steadily plummeted -- an example of how vast numbers of new people can displace the old, both accidentally and on purpose.) 

In a generation, the white majority has nearly disappeared, while the black percentage has remained about the same, with more than 90% of African Americans still native-born. White Americans are one border surge away from becoming a minority in their own country.

As Ann notes nobody would care if all those who came into the nation became Americans.  That is, no hyphenated garbage, no enclaves of "the old way from wherever" and no coming here to steal, not only here but stealing to send "somewhere else" either, such as via "remittances."

But, as Ann also notes, that's not what happens.  You let enough people in from a given place and they form enclaves because they can.  Humans are tribal; if they can evade assimilation a part of every human's DNA will urge them to do exactly that.  Put enough people from a given place in the same region and there's no reason for assimilation at all.

You might think this is benign but you'd be wrong.  Without a sense of national identity and purpose you have no nation at all.  While there are always outliers in a given country there is a point of fractionalization in a nation where the basic cohesive will to advance is lost amid all the competing interests; there is literally nothing common among the various groups any longer.

This, ultimately, is what killed Rome.

Outside forces and those hell-bent on destruction always have existed, and always will.  That's not the determining factor.  The determining factor is in fact whether internal cohesiveness in a given society is sufficient to both maintain and advance said society -- and, if necessary, beat back the barbarians from the outside.

I challenge you to show me the great advances over the millennia from the "cultures" we've thrown the door open to -- here or anywhere else.  Make a list of that which we consider essential innovations we all enjoy today and tell me which ones these cultures can claim.  Further, among those so-called "multi-cultural" societies I challenge you to identify any that have produced great innovation and advancement over the time of human experience rather than becoming self-absorbed, fractured and ultimately failed societies.

There's nothing wrong with being a melting pot provided those who come adopt and become one with it, casting off their former and less-productive, or even destructive ways of life and activities.  But that will never happen in a nation with both a tolerance for illegal immigration at any level whatsoever, or even open borders on a legal basis, along with any provision of welfare and other government benefits to non-citizens or their direct progeny and relatives.

As soon as such a system exists those who have no interest in assimilation but every interest in exploiting the free stuff they can take will outnumber those who are interested in assimilation and industry by a factor of 10 or more and will not only overrun your population they will establish enclaves such as has occurred in places like Minnesota, refusing to assimilate, and ultimately will destroy the economic and social capacity to advance since there is no need for them to do anything other than take without contributing.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-05-31 09:53 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 230 references
[Comments enabled]  

Please do.

New York (CNN Business)Three of the world's biggest entertainment companies — Netflix, Disney and WarnerMedia — say they may stop producing movies and TV shows in Georgia if the state's new abortion law takes effect.

And a fourth, Comcast's NBCUniversal, says the spread of these anti-abortion bills, if upheld by the courts, "would strongly impact our decision-making on where we produce our content in the future."

The state is a hub for entertainment industry production, in part because of generous tax breaks Georgia offers filmmakers and producers.

The corporate leftist/socialist/Communist alliance is now on full display.

I hope they do it.  And I hope Georgia does not fold.

If Disney wishes to generate a boycott of all of their properties and media by half the United States, along with Netflix, they can go right ahead and do that.  I'll be more than happy to short both of them as they'll both be zeros if they lose half their customers in this country, and they will.

Cut the crap folks -- there is no "issue" here other than manufactured outrage.  There is not one Disney or Netflix star who, if she was to become pregnant, could not get on a ****ing airplane out of Hartsfield and fly to New York to have an abortion.  Not now, not ever.  Never mind these firms filming and doing post-production work in nations where not only is abortion illegal but so is being gay, including Netflix which has filmed in Morocco.  Of course I must also mention the Disney parks in both Hong Kong and Shanghai, which are part of China, a Communist nation -- a nation that effectively forces abortions upon women in certain circumstances.

This garbage aimed at Georgia has exactly zero relevance to any of their production work; it is entirely manufactured outrage and the exertion of corporate muscle to try to change a political policy.  It is jackbooted and Communist in its nature.

This isn't a political policy that there's consensus on either; fully half of the nation is on the opposite side.

Corporations that display this sort of hubris deserve to be destroyed.  They are attempting to force people who believe differently on a political issue to comply with their demands.  But these are not corporations that produce necessities such as energy or food; they exclusively produce entertainment that exactly nobody needs.

Am I really going to be harmed if I don't buy a ticket to the next Star Wars film?  Nope.  Nor will canceling Netfux hurt me or anyone else.

Pissing off half the nation and telling them to go **** goats is a crappy businesses strategy.  I dare any of these ****heads, all of whom should drink a big fat cup of STFU, to go ahead and do it.

May Conservatives in this nation, via a simple refusal to buy anything from these firms ever again, drive both Netflix and Disney stock to ZERO.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)