The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

Quite possibly, yes... this one.

smiley

In an article discussing whether food, sedentary lifestyles or a combination of the two are responsible for the rapidly growing obesity epidemic, doctors said the obesity crisis had almost nothing to do with the amount of exercise we take part in.

They say that while frequent physical activity is vital in reducing the risk of the developing heart disease, dementia and a number of other conditions, it “does not promote weight loss.”

Writing in The British Journal of Sports Medicine the authors, who include cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, an outspoken critic of the food industry for a number of years, claim that food and soft drink companies have incorrectly emphasised how physical activity and sport can prevent people from obesity.

....

“Let us bust the myth of physical activity and obesity. You cannot outrun a bad diet,” the authors say.

It goes on.....

They go even further in challenging conventional ideas eating trends as they say that athletes and those looking to avoid excess weight gain should adopt a diet that is high in fat but low in both sugar and carbohydrates.

“Fat, including ketone bodies, appears to be the ideal fuel for exercise. It is abundant, does not need replacement or supplementation during exercise, and can fuel the forms of exercise in which most participate.”

Now there are plenty of dissenters cited in the article but what none of the dissenters, either there or here, can explain is that despite 30+ years of their chiding and advice the problem has only gotten worse and yet, according to this study, the aggregate level of exercise people engage in has not materially changed.

Go look at old black and white pictures.  You'll note that there are few people imaged that are fat.  This isn't because the nut behind the lens only took pictures of thin people, it was because there were very few fat people to take pictures of.

I'll go further -- if you look at the introduction of vegetable oils en masse, most-particularly things like Crisco, you will find a rather interesting association between that and the rise in obesity.  Now this does not prove that these oils are responsible in whole or part, but it sure looks suspicious.

This much, however, is scientific fact: There are only three types of food source -- carbohydrate, protein and fat.  If you reduce one you must increase one of the others.  If you reduce fats in the diet your only two options are protein and carbohydrate and carbohydrates, especially "fast" carbohydrates that convert very readily to glucose in the body and provide the greatest insult to the body's insulin response, are cheap.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

It's amusing to see what sort of torture the USSC goes through in an attempt to "find consensus."

1. Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, than an arrest, see, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 323, 330. Its tolerable duration is determined by the seizure’s “mission,” which is to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405, 407 and attend to related safety concerns. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been— completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention, Johnson, 555 U. S., at 327–328 (questioning); Caballes, 543 U. S., at 406, 408 (dog sniff), but a traffic stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a warning ticket, id., at 407. Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission during a traffic stop typically includes checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance. These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 658–659. Lacking the same close connection to roadway safety as the ordinary inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s traffic mission. 

It's not often that you get to see the torture of the language in the syllabus, but here you do and the farce that the USSC has become through its own self-faced arrogation of power that it does not possess thus comes into full view.

There is no reasonable connection to the seizure's "mission" (that is, traffic violations) associated with a "dog sniff" irrespective of when the "sniff" occurs.

Nor is there a reasonable connection to traffic violations in checking wants and warrants, especially against not the driver but passengers in the vehicle.

Further, in the instant case the officer admits that the driver momentarily entered the shoulder and then immediately corrected back onto the roadway.  While the statute does prohibit driving on the shoulder an essential part of any offense is intent and the officer admits that had every appearance of not being present.  So where was the initial reason for the stop?

This does not mean that in the context of a traffic violation where intent or unreasonable disregard for the law was displayed the officer might not observe in plain view a rational reason to reach articulable, individualized suspicion.  But that's rather thin here in the case at the bar; "heavy" use of a car auto air freshener "reaches individualized suspicion"?  When was the last time you saw an auto air freshener that wasn't "heavy" in a confined space (such as a car)?

Further, what is a K-9 unit doing out at this hour of the night running traffic?  That question is of course not asked by the USSC for obvious reasons -- doing so impugns the claim of "individualized suspicion" on a facial basis; such a unit "running traffic" is a per-se fishing expedition which the court has repeatedly held to be unconstitutional!

Is this a "good" ruling?  Not really, and one wonders why it was written and issued as an opinion at all, given the blatant, rank hypocrisy and lack of logic that it exposes.

But that's a discussion for another day, isn't it?  It's always a discussion for another day among Americans when it comes to this sort of thing, rather than taking a head-on view toward what the USSC has become in America and whether its torture of both the English language and the Constitution have exceeded our tolerance.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Central banks have made uneconomic decisions look wise -- for a while.  There are those who call this "mis-allocation of capital", but that's a false statement in its premise as what central banks (and all banks, really) do is not allocate "capital" at all.  They instead sell debt, a thing that is at its heart destructive to capital.  Debt cannot be other than destructive to capital because debt always comes with interest; a parasitic leech upon the capital at its base (if there is any at all.)

Emerging market borrowers have been issuing dollar bonds at an average real rate of just 1pc. The great worry is what will happen as increasingly large blocs of bonds or loans - typically on five-year maturities - come due for refinancing in a far less friendly world. The dollar has almost doubled against the Brazilian real and the Russian rouble since mid-2012.

Got it yet folks?  An increase in real rates of just a couple of percent is enough to destroy the cash flow of these economies and markets.

This is the 2006 housing market on a global scale.  Remember that what set off the firestorm in the United States housing market was not an increase in rates but rather the disappearance of "covenant non-existent" loans otherwise known as "liar loans" and similar.  That in turn was triggered by a cessation of the mathematically-impossible claim that houses will always go up in price; when this revealed to be a bald lie those who had bought paper predicated on these uneconomic "loans" discovered they were holding worthless "securities."

There was fraud in the inducement across the board but there was also plenty of pie-in-the-sky dreaming by the buyers too.  Arithmetic makes indefinite exponential series of any sort impossible.

Blowing a bigger bubble to try to rescue the prior one is the legacy of the last 30 years.  Trying to spread it thinner and further so as to make it "better" is also part of that legacy.  The problem is that it may be spread further, but it is never thinner; as such the destruction when the subsequent bubble bursts is always larger!

In this case the spreading is global and the damage will be cataclysmic.

The only debate we have left is exactly when it hits, and whether you will have achieved minimum safe distance before it does -- and whether that's possible.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Fortune has an interesting article out on Facebook today that bears reading:

Even as Facebook tries to convince news publishers like the New York Times to publish directly on its platform—instead of just posting excerpts with links to their websites—the company continues to demonstrate why that is such a Faustian bargain. On Tuesday, for example, the social-networking behemothannounced some new tweaks to its news-feed algorithm, and warned that publishers might see a decline in “post reach and referral traffic” as a result.

Facebook wants publishers to actually post articles on the service instead of the more-common excerpt-and-link.  The reason for this is to capture the entire revenue stream from advertising on that particular story.

This, of course, is diametrically opposed to the interest of the publisher, who is not being paid by Facebook to post the material!  I'd be happy to post my articles on Facebook if and only if they paid me more than I earned from advertising on my own site.

Absent that why would you take Facebook's deal?  Nobody in their right mind would, if they understood it this way which is why Facebook, of course, doesn't explain it this way.  

They instead couch their changes in the form of "optimization" for the userbase.

Uh huh.

This will, in my opinion, eventually destroy all of the monetary value in the platform as what will ultimately be left are pictures of your neighbor's cat.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Oh c'mon guys.  You're on your high horse on "proper regulation" with regard to the accused "flash crasher"?

Where the F have you been?  I reported on this behavior in the futures markets in 2010, and nobody cared.  CNBC didn't care and neither did anyone else in the regulatory structure -- yet it was instantly apparent to anyone who watched, as it was going on right under everyone's nose and clearly visible over the 4th of July holiday.

It didn't take any sort of special access or view into the market; my retail trading platform showed quite-clearly a pattern of repeatedly placing bids and offers off the market and then immediately canceling them.  The counts were in the thousand contract area, which meant that with a $5,000/contact margin requirement you needed several million dollars on deposit to place these orders for initial margin.

Well, was that money on deposit?  Let's ask that question first because if it wasn't the order should have never been able to be placed at all.

Second, why wasn't this crap stopped instantly when it was noted to be happening?  It required no special power to observe, you only had to give a crap because all orders are tagged with their originating FCM and thus can be traced.  Quite clearly the so-called regulators clearly did not give a damn.

Third, I don't believe for one second that there was only one guy doing this -- not then and not now.

So-called high frequency trading, to the extent it is abusive rather than legitimate, has a simple solution as I have propounded upon for the last five years: Require every order that is placed to be valid for at least two seconds and require that every outstanding order be margined before it is accepted.

In other words an order can only be removed from the open order books by either (1) execution or (2) a cancel which is not effective until two full seconds have elapsed after the order was placed.

Further, all outstanding orders must be margined.  That is, you must be able to clear every order, individually and without offset, that you have open at any given instant in time.

This would instantly stop these abusive order patterns as if you tried it you'd be subject to having them hit and you couldn't issue more of them than you had margin in deposit to clear at any instant in time.

But no, we can't do that -- because if we did then manipulating the market upward wouldn't happen either -- and it's only the downward moves that get the regulator's attention!

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Wake Up America

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.