The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

Yeah, ok....

(Reuters) - When Islamic State militants stormed into a northern Iraqi village and ordered everyone to convert to Islam or die only one person refused. But that did not satisfy the Sunni insurgents who are even more hardline than al Qaeda.

The militants, who have seized much of northern Iraq since arriving from Syria in June, wasted no time after the village's leader, or sheikh, stood up for his ancient Yazidi faith.

Khalof Khodede, an unemployed father of three who escaped with his life, recalled how 80 men in the village of Kocho were killed and all the women and girls were kidnapped.

Convert or die.

But if one says no, all the men die and the women and girls are kidnapped (and I bet you can guess what happened to them, although it's not said out loud.)


We all share basic human values, eh?

We are dealing with rational people who can be reasoned with and will negotiate in good faith, yes?

Uh huh.

Sure we do, and sure we are.

This basic bit of human insanity isn't exactly new in the world.  It has reared its ugly head several times through history, and always with the same result.  You can't negotiate or work with people who hold these views.  They will kill you if you do not consent to live as they demand which leaves you with only two options.

Both options suck, but IMHO one sucks less.

Nonetheless we have no business interfering over there.  It's not our land, not our people, not our war and we're not the world police department.  What we do have an obligation to, however, is our citizens and our soil.  Therefore it is my position that we must make utterly clear to the people committing these atrocities the following: If you harm one hair on the head of an American citizen, or take one action of this sort on American soil, no matter where in the world it occurs, you will all die.  


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

It's funny how people will make excuses for their own actions and inactions, but won't admit the truth.

If you start pushing back on that your circle of friends begins to shrink -- and quite quickly at that.

But it's not because you're wrong -- it's because people are uncomfortable with reality, and you're refusing to put away the "real" card.  You're removing the Facebook patina of perfection, of hedonism, of narcissism and self-delusion.

What am I talking about?  The fact that each and every one of you reading this, along with myself, consent to all of the below list each and every day:

  • Every single act of felony assault when a cop in Ferguson points a weapon at a peaceful protester and is not immediately arrested and charged with the crime of assault with a deadly weapon.
  • Every single act of altering the timing of yellow lights to generate intentional bogus violations that cannot be evaded due to the laws of physics and, when you are entrapped by happenstance of your presence, you must pay not a legitimate fine for misbehavior but instead literally have funds extorted from you.
  • The violations of your Fourth Amendment rights on the road, in the airport and on the sidewalk in NY, Texas, Florida, Tennessee and elsewhere.
  • The refusal of our government to recognize your fundamental right to life, that is the right to self defense through the keeping and bearing of the only device known to man that is effective in that regard, everywhere and anywhere without permit, license or other constraint up until you actually commit a criminal act by misusing same.
  • The bankster fraud games in Jefferson County Alabama that are still costing people doubled (or more) water and sewer bills and will forever into the future, featuring court-proved acts of bribery.
  • The bankster fraud games on Wall Street (including selling securities they self-described internally as "vomit" to people just like you through their pension funds and elsewhere) that caused the housing bubble and subsequent collapse.  Despite literal trillions of intentionally-bogus securities being sold and millions of Americans being dispossessed of their homes and personal wealth not one bankster went to prison for any of it.
  • The bankster fraud games on Wall Street that are still going on with derivatives, high-frequency trading and more, all of which has the effect of counterfeiting the currency you carry and spend on a daily basis -- in effect committing what should be prosecuted as felony grand theft against you and counterfeiting against the nation each and every day.
  • Hospitals billing people $10,000 for a $100 test without disclosing the price before the test is given, in many cases because the patient is unconscious and thus can't give meaningful consent, then suing to collect a ridiculously bogus charge.
  • Hospitals billing a woman $60,000 for two $100 vials of scorpion anti-venom while preventing you from getting that anti-venom from anywhere else through threat of criminal penalty.
  • Being forced to buy an "insurance" product (Obamacare) that isn't actually insurance under threat of government force and confiscation of your funds (theft again.)
  • Being sold ownership in property that you never actually own as you must rent it forever from the local and state government, and despite this fraud entire industries continue to use the word "sell."
  • Having your constitutionally-guaranteed freedom to travel trampled by demands that you be "licensed" to simply move your person and personal property by the ordinary means of the day.
  • Having your 4th Amendment right to be left alone trampled by a government agency that lied directly to Congress about what they were doing, falsified the justification for same (that it "caught terrorists" when in fact it actually caught none), got caught in both lies (which is a criminal offense, incidentally) and yet nobody went to prison nor has the program been stopped and the data collected under said false pretense been purged.
  • Having 3-4% of your purchasing power stolen each and every year on a compounded basis on average -- sometimes more, some less, but never, not even once since 1980, has it not happened for as little as three consecutive months.
  • Ridiculous bloat in the public schools you fund such that half or more of the money spent, and thus a huge chunk of your property taxes (which you pay either in rent or directly if you "own") is literally stolen from you and given to people who perform no necessary service.  In other words, you willingly allow yourself to be robbed each and every year.
  • Ridiculous bloat in Universities such that your children get robbed again to the tune of 3, 4, 5 even 10x what it should cost to obtain a "post-secondary" education.
  • Injury upon injury is also heaped upon your (adult) children, in concert with the previous point, through the inability to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy, declaring by statute that this "obligation" has literally the same status as child support before the law.
  • A Federal Government structure that, in concert with the above and more, literally steals about 2/3rds of the funds that flow into it via taxes and doles them out as patronage.  In other words you have 2/3rds of any taxes you pay being not put to the use claimed but instead are stolen, and all of this is done only because the government implies the threat of using guns against you if you refuse to pay - an act that by any reasonable measure is a felony committed against every one of you.

Need I go on?  I could literally write a book on the outrages, frauds and thefts you suffer on a daily basis.  Hell, I have -- I've written close to 8,500 such examinations and instances since 2007.  Through all of this and more over the last decade you've seen your cost of living go up dramatically while the median family income has not improved at all.  Not only has the technological advancement of the last 10 years, which should have resulted in you obtaining more purchasing power been stolen the theft didn't stop there; it is in fact even greater!

We all know what the counter-argument is: I voted for someone and he or she may have even promised to change some of this, but didn't.  What am I supposed to do about it?

Ah, that's the excuse you see.  And it's probably a good one -- certainly it is in your mind, and it might even be objectively.

But that doesn't change the fact that you consented and continue to consent each and every day!

Here's the thing -- even if the alternative(s) involve either intentionally driving yourself into privation or taking illegal action you still consented.  That the alternative is distasteful enough for you to refuse to act on it, irrespective of the reason, doesn't change the fact that you have given consent to all of the above and will do so again tomorrow.  It does not change the fact that each and every morning you arise from your sleep and once again give that consent.  You did so intentionally this morning, you will do so of your own free will tomorrow, and you will continue to do so in all probability every day next week, month and year.

Do remember that in 1776 the alternatives to that very same consent -- an act of theft via taxation for the purpose of grift that was in fact less than 1/10th of what we consent to today -- were very illegal.  In fact the alternatives to that consent involved committing acts of vandalism, intentional destruction and theft of other people's property, arson and more, up to and including murder and treason.

You stand here in this place called America this morning because a bunch of people heard all the arguments you've raised about how they really should just go along with it because despite protesting via voting, writing letters to the editor, posting bills on trees and other forms of dissent they weren't getting anywhere, and the remaining alternatives that were available to them had potential (indeed, even likely) costs that were too high.  

Privation, prison, even death.

They did it anyway.

Many of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence and those who took actions subsequent to it in fact suffered privation, imprisonment or both and some of them died.

This is not advocacy for violence, by the way.

It is, however, an insistence that you, personally, each and every day, admit that you, personally, are consenting to every one of the above outrages and more because you refuse to stop them.  It is an insistence that you be honest with yourself, your children, your friends and neighbors.  It is an insistence that you not call something******of one's dignity, civil rights and finances when in fact what happened is consensual sex.  It is an insistence that you hold your head high and take credit for what you have in fact done and allowed to continue, each and every day.

Honesty is the first requirement of a civilized and rational people.

Are you ready to be honest with yourself today, or will you instead choose the worst sort of lie -- lying to yourself and those closest to you?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

It never ends, does it...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ending insurance discrimination against the sick was a central goal of the nation's health care overhaul, but leading patient groups say that promise is being undermined by new barriers from insurers.


More than 300 patient advocacy groups recently wrote Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell to complain about some insurer tactics that "are highly discriminatory against patients with chronic health conditions and may ... violate the (law's) nondiscrimination provisions."


Coverage of expensive drugs tops their concerns.

So let's see.

First we set up a system that allows for all sorts of chicanery in how drugs are priced.  For example, we explicitly allow restraint of trade by various entities -- most particularly the drug-makers.  This allows them to do things like charge 10x (or even 100x or more) as much for a drug here in the United States as they do somewhere else -- say, Canada.

Or, for that matter, to charge $30,000 for a drug in the US that costs $100 in Mexico where it is made a couple of hours away by car -- and where you can buy it over the counter.

This would never be sustainable except for laws that criminalize you buying that drug in Mexico (lawfully, I might add) and driving back across the border with it to make a commercially-reasonable (say, 50%?) profit.

This sort of restraint of trade is supposed to be against the law where market power exists.  Well, does it exist for these drugs?  Are there reasonably equivalent alternatives to these therapies?  Nope, which is why that sort of pricing exists in the first place.  That would be market power.

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

So where are the indictments, prosecutions and imprisonments?  Oh, the only person who goes to jail is the guy who tries to break that restraint of trade!  How?  Because these firms got laws passed to make that explicitly illegal, and their conduct lawful.

But try it in any other line of business, and well, you go to jail for 10 years and, if you're a person you get fined $1 million smackers too.  If a corporation is involved the fine is $100 million.

Speaking of bilking people.....

A lipid panel is one of the most basic blood tests in modern medicine. Doctors use it to measure cholesterol levels in their patients, probably millions of times each year.

This is not a procedure where some hospitals are really great at lipid panels and some are terrible. There's just not space for quality variation: you are running blood through a machine and pressing buttons. That's it.

And that all makes it a bit baffling why, in California, a lipid panel can cost anywhere between $10 and $10,000. In either case, it is the exact same test.

It's not baffling at all.

It's theft.

The $10 is reasonable.  The $10,000?  It's robbery and the only way anyone gets away with it is by performing the test without disclosing the price and/or in a setting where you can't negotiate at all (say, because you're unconscious!)

Now consider this -- it is illegal to jack up the price of gasoline when there's a hurricane coming in this state.  You can go to prison for it, and the fines are substantial.  Why?  Because the state has determined that as a matter of policy you are not free to negotiate whether you will buy or not under that circumstance.  If you do not have fuel and are trying to depart the area, you either buy or you're ****ed.

Ok, now I can see the argument the other way too -- there's likely to be a scarcity of gasoline under those circumstances, so allowing the market to set prices could be better.  After all, would $10/gallon be "better" if the alternative is no gas at all?

Maybe, maybe not.  But what if the price was $5,000/gallon if you pulled in during said storm with a big car full of household goods and the storm was an hour away, but the guy filling his generator auxiliary tank was charged $4/gallon?

Ah, that's exactly what's going on here, isn't it?  And in that case I suspect virtually everyone would want to see the gas station owner hung up by his balls, and might choose to do it themselves.

So..... why is it again that the CEOs of these hospitals are free to roam among us instead of being asset-stripped to their underwear and sentenced to a nice long stay in a prison cell?

Answer that, and then answer why you allow that situation to continue.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Well, well, well now we have some interesting forensic evidence to look at.

That evidence in the form of an autopsy has disabused a number of theories right up front.  Let's get rid of the ones that don't fit the facts any more.

  • Michael Brown was shot in the back.  No he wasn't.  There were no entrance wounds in his back.  The cop might have shot at him while he was running, but if he did he either missed or hit him in his right arm or hand. (More on that in a minute.)

  • Michael Brown was executed at close range with the cop on top of him.  No he wasn't.  There was no powder residue on his body and no stippling noted.  This is very good evidence that none of the rounds were fired within 3'; burns themselves typically occur within a foot but some evidence of the powder discharge itself is usually found on the body for a discharge within 3'.  This presents a problem for the police narrative, by the way, in that the first round was allegedly fired in the cop car during a claimed struggle for the cop's weapon.  Where is the power burn from the discharge of that round?  Incidentally, if there was a round discharged in the car neither Brown or the officer could hear a damn thing, including "I surrender", for many minutes afterward.  You're free to try discharging a pistol in an enclosed space with no hearing protection if you'd like but I recommend against it (Warning: The damage to your hearing from doing so may be permanent!)

  • He turned and charged the officer.  Maybe.  But that doesn't explain two wounds -- the one to his left eye and the one on top of his head.  More on that in a minute, and those two wounds are a big problem for our officer.

  • They should have called an ambulance.  Immaterial; he was dead before he hit the ground.  It was crass to leave him on the street for four hours but it had no impact on the outcome.

Brown was 6'4; the officer was almost-certainly shorter than him.  If the officer is of average height he's about 5'10, which means he would be shooting upward when aiming at his head.  This in turn means that shooting him in the top of the head with what was identified as the fatal shot was impossible if Brown was advancing on him while erect on a level city street (and it is level; we can see that from the pictures.)  There will be those who claim that he might have put his head down (like a football player) to tackle the cop, but there's a problem with that too -- you can't tackle what you can't see and the discharge of the firearm took place at more than 3' from the target; ergo, if he had done that he couldn't have seen who he was charging at that distance.  We know he was not only too far away when the first of those two shots were fired he remained too far away for the period of time covering both discharges since there was no powder residue or stippling found on Brown's head and face.

Then there is the shot to the eye socket.  That bullet entered the right eye, exited in the area of his lower right jaw in a straight line downward and then re-entered his collarbone area directly underneath.  The path of travel of that round is virtually impossible for a round fired at an erect man who is looking at the shooting party.  That bullet did not ricochet, it traveled in a straight line from impact to where it came to rest.  The evidence shows that round was fired from above his right eye nearly parallel, not perpendicular, to the plane of Brown's face.

There were also multiple hits to his arm.  Those could have been fired while he was fleeing (especially the round to his hand; the fleshy part of your palm faces backward while you're running for a good part of your stride) but they were not fatal.  Those impacts are (sadly) consistent with attempted center-mass shots and the generally-poor marksmanship of our police officers.  Being shot, of course, will certainly get your attention though....

The shot to the eye and it's path, and the one that hit him in the top of the head does match a scenario where Brown is hit in the hand and/or arm while running, turns, drops to his knees and drops his head in reaction to those wounds (looking at them) and the cop delivers two more rounds to his head.  That would also align his cheek with the collarbone and establish the straight line and angle of impact that we know the bullet followed from the forensic evidence.

The problem is that unless this cop is a 7'+ tall giant I don't think you can get there from here if Brown is on his feet at the time those two last shots are fired.  I'd have to mock it up with a couple of dummies to be sure, but my "best guess" is that you can't come up with a solution where the officer aims his weapon across the sights and produces that bullet path.

This, standing alone, isn't proof that the cop delivered two coup-de-grace rounds to Brown -- we need more forensics, most-particularly where the expelled cartridges were and where the shots were allegedly fired from, an explanation for the alleged discharge of the officer's weapon in the car that is being cited as justification for shooting in the first place (specifically, why Brown doesn't have any evidence of powder on his body, in particular on his hands, if he was fighting over the gun!) and a cogent explanation of how those two rounds took the path these did other than the cop putting two in a man's head that was on his knees and looking at his wounds -- in which case he most-certainly was not attacking the officer at the time those two rounds were fired.

The autopsy is not damning evidence but on the balance of known facts the future got a lot dimmer for our dear officer this morning.

The Grand Jury will find this interesting I'm sure.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Ok, just one question, and yes, I know that this isn't dispositive:

How's your resting heart rate?

 by genesis

Just sayin'......

PS: The best way to not be bankrupted by the medical scam in this country, if you're unwilling to take unlawful actions such as stringing up all the monopolists and their enablers by the balls, is to not need to use it.  At all.  Yes, I know there are no guarantees, but one does what one can -- or not, as you choose.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
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 reproduced 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 or for commercial use.

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.