The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

I'm fixing to start pruning back the bushes again...

The latest idiocy revolves around the KY Court Clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay people, despite being ordered to do so by multiple courts.

There is a meme that started being circulated around social media a couple of days ago which asked "well, if you support her, would you support a Puritan clerk who refused to issue pistol permits because she holds pacifist religious beliefs?"

Sounds interesting as a discussion point, right?

No, it's not.  It is in fact a gross insult on both points that it attempts to raise.

Folks, something that is a right cannot be conditioned on a permit or license.  Both provide you with the ability to do something that is otherwise, without same, prohibited.

It is without question that people decided who to have an intimate association with long before any government existed, say much less ours here in the United States.  Quite-clearly, this falls within the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" boundaries that the Declaration stated all persons are endowed with as rights simply by virtue of being human.

The Second Amendment, a declaration of a pre-existing right, is clear on it's face: You have the right to keep and bear (possess) arms.  The reason for this again flows from the unalienable rights -- specifically, the right to life.  Since you possess that right and it may not be debarred from you it is only logical that you may defend it as you determine (or not, should you so choose.)

That you, along with many others -- even millions of others, have refused to assert your fundamental human rights do not change the fact that they exist; that's the entire point of an unalienable right.  You may assert it any time you'd like -- now, tomorrow, yesterday, or never as you so choose.  That some government agency may disrespect that right changes none of this, other than your personal calculation (and that of your neighbors, associates and friends) as to whether you will make that choice to assert or not said right on any given day and the potential cost of doing so.

Why do you care about a marriage "license" when there is no law requiring you to obtain a permit to exercise a fundamental human right?  This is particularly true when the history of said laws is examined; they were originally used and enforced as explicit tools of racism and while none of those tools are still operative (by law) in some states they are still on the books.

Those who argue that the government has associated a whole host of benefits with "marriage" and this somehow justifies their angst are behaving as toddlers who engage in a bawl-fest when they cannot have a fifth candy bar.  This is a Constitutional Republic and the Constitution is a negative document.

That is, The Constitution explicitly removes rights of action from both you and other political organs (e.g. the States, your county and city government, etc) and reserves those rights of action to the Federal Government; anything not specifically delegated there remains out-of-bounds.  The States did not believe that the government would respect that fact and thus demanded as a condition of ratifying the Constitution inclusion of the 10th Amendment that makes an explicit statement on the matter:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

For those of you who wish to argue over "marriage benefits" in federal law you first must find in the Constitution the power to enact a law that privileges marriage.

Such a power is not delegated in the Constitution and thus does not exist.

Let me make this clear:

When you argue for enforcement under power of alleged law, complete with criminal and civil penalties and the ability to use force, up to and including lethal force, to compel compliance when no delegation of power exists for said alleged law what you are arguing for is an explicitly unlawful act undertaken by a mob that you happen to belong to and associate with.

The solution to such "benefits" being available to some people (e.g. "marriage") and not others (e.g. "gay people who want to be married") is not to further expand the size and power of said mob nor to promulgate, egg on and commit even more unlawful acts.

It is to dismantle said unlawfully-enacted benefits so as to return (in part) our government to its Constitutional boundaries.

It is wrong and illegal to rob someone  However, the fact that if you do it anyway and get away with it once, twice, a hundred, thousand or million times does not change whether it is lawful to commit robbery. The only way to make robbery legal is to actually change the Constitution so that private property rights are removed from the people.

If your reaction to this controversy (and the related ones over the last few years) has come from a knee-jerk emotional reaction predicated on some idea of "fairness" that can be excused up to a point, since a lot of people have not considered the underlying rights (and disrespect of them) in relationship to our government when it comes to this and other matters (such as one's right to bear arms as one has a right to defend their own life.)

You might get away with arguing that you were sleeping, drunk or stoned in the required American Government class you took in High School (assuming you graduated) and that your teacher gave you a passing grade despite your failure to learn anything about the foundation on which this nation and its political system has been built.

However, if you maintain such a position once these facts have been pointed out to you as an adult then what you have declared for all to see is that you have no interest in logic nor the foundation of our country, and in fact you openly demand that our Constitution be disregarded for your emotional satisfaction.

If this is your position then I want nothing to do with you.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2015-09-03 06:00 by Karl Denninger
in International , 294 references
 

Here it comes you fools...

Kate Whyte almost got to the point where she was going to stand on a street corner with a sign stating: "Homeless: have $1 million dollars, can't find a home to buy. Please sell me your home."

She was nearing her breaking point. She sold her five-bedroom North Vancouver house in March for $1.3 million. Whyte, her husband Peter and her youngest child planned to downsize and buy a smaller house in the same area.

WHAT?!

The benchmark house in Vancouver is over $1 million?  Toronto is just under that?

Are you out of your ****ing minds?

Canada learned nothing from the United States and our housing bubble and both deserves to and will have a monstrous blow-up and crash.

As for those of you in the Canadian Real Estate Market, since you saw what happened here and know, but are involved in this anyway, perhaps those who wind up under a freeway overpass will decide that the endless excuses I'm sure you will be putting forward simply don't wash.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Oh oh.......

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Grrrr...

Amgen is launching its injectable cholesterol drug in Europe at around half the U.S. price, in a move likely to stoke controversy about the way Americans end up paying far more than others for new medicines.

Repatha belongs to a potent and expensive new class of drugs for lowering "bad" LDL cholesterol, whose high cost has prompted concerns among healthcare providers and doctors.

U.S.-based Amgen said on Tuesday it would charge 340.20 pounds ($521.70) in Britain for a 28-day supply of Repatha, or roughly $6,780 a year, against a list price of $14,100 in the United States, where the drug is also being launched this week.

Britain is a first-world nation with a per-capita GDP comparable to ours.

So why is it that Amgen can sell their drug for half price over there compared to here and not have an immediate flood of people buying it there to sell it here, thus forcing the prices to converge?

That's simple: The drug companies (along with others) got laws passed to make that illegal.

You're not supposed to be able to do that, you see, but in our world 15 USC doesn't mean anything.  Nor do simple property rights -- that is, the premise that once you buy something you own it and may do with it as you wish.

If we are to ever do anything about our government deficits and debt before it blows up in our face and impoverishes virtually everyone, with the worst of it falling on Senior Citizens, this crap must stop and the firms that engage in these practices, all of which violate the founding premise of free commerce that says once you sell a thing it is no longer yours to control, must be asset-stripped to their corporate underwear.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2015-09-02 05:30 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 289 references
 

And?

CNN said Tuesday it is amending the criteria for candidates to qualify for its Republican presidential debate later this month, possibly clearing the way for contender Carly Fiorina to be part of the main-stage debate.

Fiorina has battled for weeks to be included in the Sept. 16 main event, arguing that CNN was relying too heavily on old polling to determine which candidates would make the top-10 cut.

Frankly, I don't get it.  What does Fiorina bring to the party?  She was a disaster at HP; not only did she get fired by the board the company lost half of its stock value and thousands of employees were laid off.

Now granted, she did well at Lucent -- or did she?  While she wasn't there when the company nearly blew up she was in charge of the service-provider business and for that reason one has to wonder exactly how much of her guidance was involved in the decision to engage in the vendor financing scheme that detonated the firm's finances.

You do remember Lucent and the fact that by 2002 the company's stock priced had crashed to 56 cents, right?  Lucent only avoided bankruptcy via an effective forced sale to Alcatel -- an ignoble fate that was brought about by outrageously irresponsible vendor financing of equipment to CLEC customers that turned out to be terrible credit risks.

Where, pray tell, is the press on her history in that regard?  I count not one but two questionable corporate management stints, and while I'm not ready to indict her on her time at Lucent I'm also not going to count that as a "success" without a hell of a lot more information.  Sales increases are all fine and well but if they are generated through vendor financing that ultimately blows up the company is that really "success" or should we call it something else?

This isn't some abstract thing for me either -- I ran MCSNet in the middle of that crap, never engaged in any of the stupid transactions (on either side) that ultimately blew up the tech world and half the carriers in it at the time, but I have a very long memory and there's no ****ing way Fiorina should be considered for any sort of national executive position until all of the documentation and facts related to that abject disaster are vetted and out in the open.

We haven't even gotten to HP yet.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Why I Find It Hard To Give A F**k

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.

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 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.