The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Editorial]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
All Gun-Banners MUST Be Forced To Answer This

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.

2018-04-10 18:16 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 120 references
[Comments enabled]  

Read carefully:

MIAMI (AP) — Hundreds of students have walked out of their Miami high school to protest gun violence after four current or former classmates were shot off campus.

So let's make this clear:

1. The shootings had nothing to do with school.  It occurred over the weekend at an apartment complex.

2. It was probably gang or drug-related.  Most shootings of this sort are, and this specific apartment complex was tagged by AP as being in a neighborhood where such is common.  Indeed a plurality of all gun homicides are drug or gang-related -- not related to so-called "assault weapons", riles or schools at all.

3. One of the "students" (in a blue hoodie) appears to be smoking a jointwhich is not legal in this state and further isn't legal for an under-21 person in any state.  NEVER MIND THAT SINCE THE SHOOTING IS PROBABLY GANG OR DRUG RELATED THAT STUDENT IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT LEADS TO THE VIOLENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE -- FUELING THE ILLEGAL DRUG TRADE, THE GANGS THAT SUPPLY IT AND THUS THESE SHOOTINGS.

And finally, said students are demanding mass-murder, as I've explained in my previous post; for those who haven't viewed the video have a look here:



View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-04-09 08:06 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 518 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's really quite-simple folks.

Yes, it's 20 minutes.  Watch it.  Distribute it.  Then enforce it.

If companies want to back those who advocate for and declare they will commit millions of murders they need to be put out of business -- lawfully, through irrevocable boycotts.  Those who support or work for any organization or firm that lend support to those advocating for millions of murders need to become unemployed -- and permanently unemployable.  No exceptions, no ifs, no ands and no buts.

There are those who say that there's a "cold civil war" going on right now culturally.  Well, maybe.  But the people on the left are not arguing for a "cold" civil war -- they are advocating, supporting and declaring intent to commit mass-murder, in America, on the scale of Rwanda -- or even Nazi Germany.

If someone tells you repeatedly and to your face that they intend to murder you what is your response? Do you actually associate with and buy products from those who state they are willing and intend to commit millions of murders to achieve a political goal?

That's what all those who support banning or registering any sort of firearm in America are actually stating.  It is a fact that some percentage of Americans believe the words of the 2nd Amendment mean what they say: shall not be infringed.  We can have whatever debate you wish on what percentage of Americans believe this but I am absolutely certain of one thing: It's not zero.  If that figure is even 0.1% of the American population then a demand to ban any gun is a declaration of intent to murder 300,000 Americans to get what you want.  If it's 1% then that number is 3.3 million murders.  And if it's 3%? Then there are 10 million people who everyone that supports such a ban is stating they intend to murder simply because those individuals believe that the Constitution is not a dead letter and means exactly what it says.

Not a single one of the people arguing for "gun bans" or "gun registration" wants to actually reduce gun violence.  It is an outrageous fraud to claim you're "against gun violence" when the actual position you are taking is that you're willing to murder millions of Americans to obtain a political goal.

That this declaration has not resulting in an immediate shooting war -- a civil war on our own soil -- is simply because with the exception of the criminally insane a simple declaration of intent to murder millions doesn't contain enough credibility for people to take it seriously.

It is a grave error to believe that this will continue beyond the point that the first people are actually murdered in furtherance of that declaration of intent.  It is a further grave error, and one that can easily lead to an actual civil war with millions of Americans lying dead on both sides of the debate, for you to fail to point this fact out every time you hear such a phrase as "common sense" gun restrictions and take corrective action to demand that those who have and do adopt such positions declare their true intent in public -- that is, to force them to publicly admit their intention to murder all who disagree while accepting the social, economic and political consequences of doing so.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-04-09 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 127 references
[Comments enabled]  

When I started MCSNet we did not have Section 230 of the CDA.  It was passed in 1996 with the goal, amusingly, of restricting free speech.

Those parts were ultimately struck down as unconstitutional (go figure) but Section 230 remains.

Section 230 was well-intentioned -- but has been massively abused and, I argue, intentionally so.

The problem is that Section 230 can shield people for knowingly allowing illegal things to pass.  We're not talking about negligence here -- we're talking about direct knowledge of actual criminal conduct.

If I take a box to UPS and ship it, and it happens to have child pornography in it, UPS is not responsible.  That's reasonable; to demand otherwise would be to demand that UPS open and inspect every package, and then if there was something that might be illegal they'd have to do whatever was necessary to find out.  That's outrageous, which is why it doesn't work like that.

But, if UPS accepts from me a box on which I've written, on the outside, "Contents: Child Pornography" then the situation changes.  Now they have actual knowledge that there almost-certainly is, indeed, something very illegal in the box.  Ditto if the box is labeled "Bomb", for example.

Section 230 has been "liberally interpreted", however, to shield those with actual knowledge.  Not a reasonable suspicion or even probable cause -- actual knowledge.

Recently Congress passed a law to change this -- at least for human trafficking.  But the seizure of Backpage was undertaken under existing law, which means that perhaps -- just perhaps -- the DOJ has finally pulled its head out of its ass and drawn the perfectly-reasonable legal distinction between expecting someone to investigate and draw a judgement and outrageously blatant, in-your-face criminal acts where the operators in question did not just suspect they actually knew not only that the conduct was going on but also that it was black-letter illegal without any lawful explanation.

The indictment, which is reported to contain 93 counts, is as of this publication sealed -- but word on the street is that it contains allegations of sex trafficking -- that is, not willing prostitution by individuals but rather the sort of sexual slavery and human trafficking that ought to shock anyone with a conscience.

If the allegations made -- that the company not only knew what it was charging money for was illegal it also attempted to conceal it both through machine alteration of content and human involvement then one would hope they couldn't hide behind Section 230 -- amended or not.

We shall see.

Update: Uh, yeah.  Lock 'em up Danno, assuming these allegations prove up.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-04-08 19:19 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 160 references
[Comments enabled]  

Ha Ha, made you look.

"New high-speed Florida train kills 4th person since launching service"

Note: Faux Snooz claims the train killed the person.  It committed an act of independent thinking and has now killed four times!

This is exactly the sort of stupidity I expect from the media.

A train cannot kill anyone.  A person can step in front of it, either accidentally or intentionally, and get run over by said train, but the train will occupy the same space at that time whether a person is there or not.

Now compare with "the gun shot someone."

No, the gun did not shoot anyone.  A person shot someone; the tool used by the person was a gun.

Similarly, the train did not kill anyone as "kill" is an verb -- an action.  Trains are incapable of actions as they are inanimate objects and in the case of trains in particular the person or machine controlling them cannot do much about their speed and location quickly because the accumulated momentum prohibits that due to the laws of physics.

So a correct headline would be "Stupid person walks in front of oncoming train and is run over."

But that doesn't sell newspapers, or web clicks.

Just like "Insane individual murders three" doesn't either.

PS: That's not a "high speed" train either; if you want to see one go to Japan or, for that matter, the TGV.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-04-08 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 173 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is damned infuriating and dwarfs the so-called "gun violence" problem.

Emergency rooms in Illinois are noticing a spike in synthetic pot users suffering from "severe bleeding," and state health officials are warning the public to remain vigilant.

This so-called "synthetic" pot isn't really weed at all nor is it derived from it.

Instead it is a combination of synthetic chemical compounds that are allegedly called cannabinoids but they are not the same substances as found in marijuana or extracts from it.

They are called "cannabinoids" because they bind to the same receptors in the brain as do both CBC and THC, the inactive (medical) and active (psychoactive) components of marijuana.

This does not make them safe.

Consider Strontium, which your body mis-identifies as calcium (it goes to the same place.)  The reason it does so is that it is a Group II substance on the periodic table, and thus is chemically similar in terms of how it reacts with other substances.

The problem is that Strontium is frequently produced by nuclear reactors, the isotope produced in reactors is radioactive, and thus if you manage to consume it you have a fairly decent probability of it giving you bone cancer or leukemia since it will concentrate exactly as calcium does (in the bones, mostly.)

Are you done with the idiocy of "similar receptors, similar substances, similar risks and rewards" yet?

Never mind that it appears the problem here is that the "fake weed" is laced with.... wait for it......

Rat poison.

Well guess what - this crap only exists because it's not legal for you to grow a weed in your back yard.

Further, I'll make a prediction: This crap, already laced, sourced from China just as did laced dog food.  That's attempted murder folks and yet nobody is talking about holding the ultimate source nation accountable.

Nobody could sell "synthetics" like this if you could waltz into the local pharamacy, show ID for 21 and buy..... some buds.  Or some hash oil.  Or a "brownie."  The last one can be consumed without any smoking risk, by the way (let's face it, as a distance runner I'm well-aware that smoking is bad news, ok?  I know nobody who does that's competitive; that might be because the decreased VO2max it causes means you can't be.)

Many states have allegedly legal medical marijuana, but guess what -- nobody using's these "synthetics" for medical reasons.  So there you are.

The usual argument is that various drugs are "gateways"; that one leads to all the others.  This is demonstrably false; a huge number of people prefer alcohol and even where weed is legal they will not "cross over" and substitute.  Proof?  Aspen.  It's been reported that this last year for the first time marijuana tax revenues eclipsed booze.  But booze taxes did not go down.  There goes your "gateway" hypothesis..... up in smoke.  Despite the legal availability of weed the drinkers did not substitute and did not decrease their drinking!

I've known several addicts throughout my life.  I've never met one that didn't have a preferred drug.  That doesn't mean they won't use others if they can't get the one they want.  But it does mean that the hypothesis of "gateways" is false; given their preference and availability someone who habitually consumes some drug, whether it be beer, wine, liquor (yes, there are three different groups among drinkers too!), weed, meth, heroin or whatever -- they will remain with their preference so long as that's reasonably possible and the "somewhat regular but not addicted user" (which doesn't apply to many opioid users but certainly does for many other "drugs of abuse") has no desire to "cross over" or "gateway" at all.

There are those who will "do or use anything" out there, but even among those individuals they have a preference and it normally is exclusionary if they can obtain that drug whether or not the others are easily, or even legally, available.

In fact legalizing marijuana may interdict a material number of opioid users and prevent their deaths.  Particularly for high-CBD preparations (which are illegal today from a federal point of view even if it's physically impossible to get stoned on them) there are some maladies and routes that might wind up leading to opioid addiction because it is very easy to get accidentally hooked.  If someone has an alternative that has no physical addiction risk why wouldn't they try it first, assuming that (1) it's easy to get, (2) it's legal, and (3) it's cheap.  Illegal synthetic and diverted prescription opioids are none of those.

Many people end up abusing opioid drugs such as oxycodone and heroin after starting off with a legitimate prescription for pain. The authors argue that people who avoid that first prescription are less likely to end up as part of the opioid epidemic.

"We do know that cannabis is much less risky than opiates, as far as likelihood of dependency," says W. David Bradford, a professor of public policy at the University of Georgia. "And certainly there's no mortality risk" from the drug itself.

I don't know how many of the ~60,000-odd opioid overdose deaths -- nearly all of them accidents in that they're not suicides or homicides -- would be avoided were someone able to walk into a pharmacy anywhere and without a single peep from anyone, including disabusing them of any of their other rights, buy up 20 Class-A Joints in a red and white box.  But if it was just a few percent -- we're talking thousands of people who don't die.  We have fed that monster on purpose not only here with pharmaceutical companies but with both trade and drug policy as well.

Further such a change on a federal basis would almost-certainly stop all of the injury due to "fake pot" overnight, since those seeking it aren't looking for what the "fake" stuff does, they're looking for the real deal and can't get it -- either easily, legally, or both.

C'mon folks.  There's exactly nobody who can point to any material number of deaths caused by weed anywhere.


Despite a whole hell of a lot of history with its use in the United States and elsewhere.

Colorado is a funny one.  There's a screaming harpie group that claims that in the years since legalization the number of deaths on the road in which THC was found in the dead person's body has gone up materially.  That's true.

However, the number of deaths per million miles driven in the state when compared against eight other states with similar traffic, road and population mixes but in which marijuana remains illegal did not move materially.

Why did the gross number go up?  Not only are people driving more miles (especially out west) the population has risen 20ish percent in Colorado over the same period of time!  Further, there has been a small but statistically significant increase in crash rates due to distracted driving (e.g. texting behind the wheel.)

So while the absolute number of incidents has risen that is to be expected since the number of people and miles driven have both gone up too, and so has a non-drug related material crash cause.

Look at this graph (top one).

That is all cause deaths on Colorado roads.  Note that the number of deaths has gone up.  But the trend is flat-to-down and has been for decades -- there is no discernible increase in fatality rates per driven mile since legalization at all.  Further, the 5ng/ml standard Colorado adopted is ridiculously low; there is hard proof that medical users, for example, who haven't consumed anything in more than 12 hours and are sober in all respects can test more than double the legal limit.  Finally, there's the (ugly) fact that when people wreck on booze they're typically clinically and outrageously drunk, and it shows -- most fatalities in which alcohol is an actual factor (not the NTSB "definition" where if I am drunk riding in a car you are driving, stone-cold-sober with a 0.0 BAC, that's an "alcohol involved fatality) have drivers with a BAC approaching double or even more the legal 0.08 limit.

So why do we keep hearing about all sorts of bizarre and exotic drugs -- like "synthetic" weed and opioids?

Our government's policies are directly responsible for the creation, importation, sale and resulting harm from these substances.

In the case of "synthetic pot" were actual marijuana and its legitimate extracts to be legalized and regulated like booze there would be no reason to make, distribute or sell synthetics.  You'd be out of your mind to buy them in Colorado, for example -- I suspect the total amount of these "synthetics" sold in that state is zero.

How much illegal moonshine is made and sold today?  An effective zero since anyone who wants liquor can go to the store.  How much illegal moonshine was made during prohibition when you could not go to the store and buy a bottle of Jack Daniels and how many people were killed or severely injured due to crappy quality control and thus accidental adulteration of same -- along with all the created gang violence?

If you care about people dying then the place to focus on is not guns.  Yes, there are many gun homicides, but there are roughly four times as many opioid deaths in a year as gun homicides and virtually all of them are a consequence of our drug laws in that that legal environment drives people to illegal, synthetic opioids and creates the addicts that then go on to accidentally kill themselves.

If we can manage to get rid of 25% of those opioid deaths by legalizing marijuana in all its forms and treating it like booze on a national basis, along with removing the zero-penalty criminality for associated offenses connected to drug use and peddling we would also get rid of a major source of gun homicides as well -- a huge percentage of which are caused by the illegal drug trade exactly was the case during Prohibition for alcohol, and now, post-repeal of Prohibition, there are an effective zero such homicides.

Stop the stupid folks and demand the politicians in DC do the right thing.

Right here, right now, today.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)