The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
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.

2018-04-28 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 620 references
[Comments enabled]  

A hundred years ago someone would have been immediately shot had irrefutable proof of this sort of political rigging come out.  Indeed, at least once in the not-so-distant past there was an actual open revolt over vote rigging.  That's why it was done behind closed doors, in a loud saloon somewhere or otherwise in a place where there was zero chance of other than the two people involved hearing it -- and there was no such thing as a recording phone either.

In a frank and wide-ranging conversation, Hoyer laid down the law for Tillemann. The decision, Tillemann was told, had been made long ago. It wasn’t personal, Hoyer insisted, and there was nothing uniquely unfair being done to Tillemann, he explained: This is how the party does it everywhere.

Read the whole article.

It's a rank admission by the Democratic party (oh by the way, the Republicans do it too!) that there is no such thing as an actual clean election in the primaries.  It's all a fraud; the party selects who they want to win and then makes sure they do, or at least does their level damndest best -- including swinging around millions or even billions of dollars from outside the district or state in question.

When I first moved to this area I had a short-lived bromance with the concept of running for US House.  It lasted through all of about 15 minutes of conversation with some of the local Republican party folks who made quite-clear that their view of such an endeavor was rather different than mine.

Mine was that if they wanted me they would basically draft me -- that is, the party would fund the race, I'd have their full support and marketing effort behind it, etc.  Their view was that I'd stick six figures or more of my own cash into the game up front and they'd decide at some point whether they "liked" me enough to come on board -- a decision that could go either way, they were under no obligation of any sort and in fact they might actively oppose me in the primaries, either openly or surreptitiously.  My middle finger went up -- fast -- and that was that.

I remind you that I pointed out back when Sanders was clothes-lined by the DNC in the 2016 election that there is nothing in the law that requires a political party to play fair.  What nobody in the press noted at the time (other than myself) is that the formal name for the Presidential Primaries are Presidential Preference contests.

Read that folks -- preference.

In other words, you prefer.  You don't elect.

The political parties are not required to play fair or be impartial vote-counters for the people in a given state or locale and in fact they never have been.

Exactly zero press attention has ever been focused on this.

Why would someone be a Democrat (or Republican) if their vote literally did not matter because the person(s) to be "selected" for the ballot in their particular jurisdiction was decided by a bunch of goons in a smoke-filled room?

Why would you give them money?

Why would you work on a campaign?

Why would you honor, respect and obey any sort of legislative act that said goons put in place after they rigged the election?

In short why would you consider such a "government" to have any legitimacy beyond that which it enforced at gunpoint?

You're worried about Russian interference?  How about rank political corruption right here undertaken by our own political party leadership?

Well, guess what -- that's what we have.

And former Speaker Pelosi, by the way, thinks that's just fine and endorses it -- in fact her complaint isn't that the party did it, but that someone had the temerity to record the threats.

You're still sitting down, swilling your beer?

That's what I thought.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)


Email now to put this nice original piece of art on your wall!

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-04-27 10:03 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 218 references
[Comments enabled]  

I continue to be astonished at how the leverage ratchet job is foisted off on the American public, who inevitably lap it up and mewl for more -- after being bent over the table and assaulted.

I've recently been entertaining the idea of building a small camper on top of a utility trailer.  Why?  Because of idiocy like this:

The Leentu is a new pop-up camper concept designed for use on a pick-up truck. According to the Leentu’s official website, there are two models in the works – a composite version with a target weight of fewer than 150 pounds and a carbon fiber model that is looking to break into the sub-100-pound category.

This is a more than $10,000 tent, basically.

Read that again: $10 large or more for what amounts to a glorified tent.

Let's cut the crap eh?  For under $1,000 you can buy a base utility trailer brand new -- welded frame, freeway-speed capable wheels, axle and tires, etc.  For another $1,000 or maybe a bit more, depending on how luxurious you wish it to be, you can go buy the dimensional lumber to build out a reasonably-aerodynamic box on top of it, appropriately anchored (so it doesn't fly off!), and a functional and basic interior, plus a liftable hatch over a rear compartment that has a galley in it.  You can certainly do it for $2,000 and quite-nicely too (maybe even including a small AC unit for when you have plug-in power available!)

It won't be fancy for that sort of money but it sure as hell will be functional and when you get where you're going you can drop it, which means when not moving it you pay zero in fuel economy penalty.

So what do you get for more than five times the money?

"Fabulous and modern" materials plus someone's ratchet job from their business leverage, basically.

It gets worse.  It wasn't that long ago that you could trivially find a place to camp for under $20/nt.  Think about what the campground is providing -- a hot water shower, a place to take a crap and a patch of dirt on which to pitch the tent.

That's it.  What's the cost to the person who owns the place, whether it's a state park or some private land?  Damn near nothing.  Maybe a quarter a day for the hot water you consume (assuming they need propane to heat it) and there might be $10 large in the brick bath-house and crapper in terms of materials and labor.  Seriously folks, we're talking camping here, not gilded faucet and sink luxury hotel accommodations!

Not any more.  Now the site fee may be available in the $20-25 range daily but then there's more!  All the state parks have started charging a car tag fee that typically runs another $10/night.  Most offer a $30ish "annual" pass but what if you're traveling around between states?  You're going to get gang-raped for each new state you go into; that $25/nt is now $40, which is within spitting distance of a cheap motel.  Oh, and the "private" places have figured this out and of course more than doubled their asking price.

May I remind you that the motel comes with unlimited and included air conditioning and heat, plus a TV and a private bathroom along with a tub and shower -- where the "camping site" has none of those?  Never mind a bed (instead of you providing a sleeping bag, structure and whatever else.)

The places where you can disappear into the woods without a damned permit (more fees) and similar are getting fewer by the day and the so-called "campgrounds" are going from a reasonable and fun alternative to feeling more and more like the sort of financial rape served up at the doctor's office.  Don't even get me started on the so-called national parks.

I recently looked into the "disappear into the woods" thing for a week or so in a place I used to stomp around.  All the land that used to be more-or-less open to this has been glommed up by some "conservancy" movement and now that's banned; "day use" only, and with a fee.  The remaining options are now "organized" campgrounds with ridiculous fees or even more-ridiculous "lodging" that's 5x what it used to cost (and hasn't been improved through a single nickel of expense in the last 30 years either.)  I used to like hanging out in that part of the country but now it has turned into another liberal hellhole stuffed with jackasses that have too much margin on their credit card and damn few brains.  If I was looking for Ft. Lauderdale style stupidity I'd go there.

What the actual ****?  It's the glamping ratchet job garbage that is driving this.  Poke up $10+ large for a glorified tent on top of a (ridiculously overpriced) pickup and suddenly $50 doesn't sound so bad.

But it is.

Look at the rest.  Last night Spamazon served up a quarterly report that sent their stock price up over $100 instantly.  What did they do on the conference call?  Ratchet up PRIME membership costs by 20%.  Do you get more tomorrow at $119 than you get now at $99?  No.  You get the same things - exactly the same things.  But the company needs to find a way to keep hammering the "40% growth" number and one way is to add 20% to the top-line for that service while providing nothing more for the money.  That's halfway there and if they convince idiots like you to pay for it then they "win".

They probably can and probably will -- and will drive everyone else out of business in the process.

Let's not forget that Amazon is, essentially, a money-losing goods seller that makes money selling "memberships" and cloud computing services, some of the latter being captive to the government, with some of that on a no-bid basis.  Ain't that special?

Actually it's supposed to be felonious; the use of a profitable line of business as a subsidy source to destroy competitors in some other line of business was made illegal more than 100 years ago via 15 USC Chapter 1 to combat firms that were doing exactly that same thing.

Yet here we are with a company that has a market cap closing in on a trillion dollars and which has spent the last four years doing exactly that while drawing zero regulatory or enforcement response.

The guy who shot up a Waffle House had, in the few previous years, also committed what appear to be felonies.  So did the shooter at Parkland.  The cops did nothing about either and ultimately people got killed as a direct and proximate result of the cops intentional refusal to arrest for violent felonies that were directly reported to them.  The number of politicians or media outlets that have called for the responsible parties who intentionally sat on their asses after having said violent felonies reported to them to be held to account number zero.  Instead we have lionized, put on TV, sponsored "marches" by and given "checkmarks" on Twatter to those arguing that you didn't get ****ed hard enough by the shooters when your kid or family member was slaughtered; now you must surrender your civil rights as well because the cops didn't do their jobs and can't be expected to even when the offense in question is directly reported to them.

Now if you kick a swan in the head.... that will get you arrested.

The underlying principle here is that the ratchet job in the copshops must be maintained and enhanced.  We must allow all those pensions to be paid.  Hell, we must allow one of those who cowered outside Parkland to retire and collect said pension, taking from the citizens for the rest of his miserable yet taxpayer-gilded life, even though he deliberately sat outside rather than do his damn job and take on the jackwad who was killing kids.

Is it really any different with Spamazon?  Or with the national parks?  Or with Facesucker? 


Nor is it different with so-called "cancer treatments."  One million dollars is the often-targeted benchmark for these "new medicines."  Who has that sort of money (and would willingly spend it) for a "treatment" that does not cure but does provide another few months to a couple of years?  Only a few individuals, which means if there was no ratchet job that could force you to cough up your next door neighbor's cancer treatment nobody in their right mind would try to price like this because the number of people who could pay would be statistically indistinguishable from zero.

The only way this works is if "someone" is enlisted to shove a gun up your ******* and threaten to blow your brains out via the long path if you don't surrender not only the entire contents of your wallet but the next five years of future earnings.

I was asked last night to write something analytical on some of these recent "results."  Well, there you have it; it's a ratchet job from top to bottom, across the board, and if you think you can keep ahead of it you're wrong.

Oh by the way this won't go on for much longer.  Yeah, the first time the government goon shows up with the gun and anally violates you he gets your wallet and the next five years of your future earnings because you're too stupid to recognize that it's coming and stop him (hopefully politically and peacefully) before he can do it to you.

The second time, however, when Mr. Goon man comes back what's there is a bloody hole, an empty wallet and you have no future earnings as they were already confiscated.

Of course since your future earnings were already confiscated you might also have trouble making the rent or property tax payments on your house, never mind that $119 Spamazon Prime sub.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

A recent action by some states to "hold accountable" automakers that fail to meet CAFE fleet requirements has just led to a major strategy shift in Ford, and it's bad for Americans.

Trump's EPA wants to roll back some of those requirements -- which IMO are arguably impossible to meet without forcing a significant part of the fleet onto other than actual fuel.  In other words if you have a fleet in which you sell a lot of electric cars then the fact that the pollution is shoved off somewhere else helps your numbers on a fleet-average basis.

This has resulted from an insane media and greenie-led screamfest that we're all gonna die from CO2 emissions.  Then there is the farm lobby that wants to force higher ethanol content, never mind that ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline, so their claims that this will "improve" mileage are crap -- the more ethanol in the fuel the lower the mileage per gallon of fuel consumed the vehicle produces.  That's physics *******s; you can't manufacture BTUs out of thin air!

Further, what happens if nobody wants to buy said electric cars?

You're done; the fines for failure to meet the requirements across the entire fleet "as sold" can be ridiculous.

Ford has now responded to this.  They'll make only trucks and SUVs, which have lower requirements, plus one performance model (the Mustang.)

The lowly sedan and hatchbacks are gone.

You can't force a company to build something and if you get punitive enough they'll stick up the middle finger and leave that segment of the market -- which is exactly what Ford has announced.

Doing so will not only screw consumers it will screw the environment too.

See, trucks and SUVs have a (much) higher profit margin. This means you pay more and get less.  The company gets more, you spend more, you get less.

What's worse is that if you buy a truck instead of a sedan the environment gets screwed at the same time.  A truck or SUV inherently has a higher cD (coefficient of Drag) because it has a greater frontal area than a sedan.  It thus achieves fewer miles per gallon all other things being equal.  If it's a pickup truck then it's even worse because the joint between the bed and cab is a discontinuous point for airflow and results in turbulence, further increasing drag.  And guess who pays for the extra fuel?  The consumer.

So the screamfest has managed to result in both the environment and the consumer getting screwed.  The consumer gets less choice, higher cost both in acquisition and operating expense and the environment gets hosed too because instead of 35mpg the truck only gets 25mpg to perform the same job.

People have the right to choose such a trade-off -- or at least they should.  But when you stick your big toe on the scale, as the government has done here, what winds up happening is that the choice gets made for you and you as a consumer get screwed because at some point firms say "the Hell with this garbage" and exit that line of business.

Where did the sub-$20,000 decently-equipped sedan go that can obtain nearly 40mpg on the highway?

Our government murdered it and the greenies are cheering on destruction to both your wallet and the environment.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-04-26 12:40 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 141 references


Email today to have this on your wall tomorrow; mixed-media on canvas, ready to hang and enjoy!

View this entry with comments (opens new window)