The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Editorial]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
There Can Be NO Compromise On Data

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.

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 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.

2018-08-16 11:21 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 160 references
[Comments enabled]  

So Brennan is all bent out of shape that his clearance was revoked by President Trump.

Brennan was the former head of the CIA, and as such he had to have a TS/SCI (SAP) clearance to do his job.  There are plenty of people who have TS/SCI (or SAP) clearances, many more who have ordinary TS clearances, and a lot of people who have "Secret" or "Confidential" level clearances.

USA today says that this is a "dangerous" thing; that Trump will pull your clearance if you "speak truth to power."  They're hardly alone; CNN is all over this of course, along with other so-called "mainstream media" properties.

They should all be destroyed for this outrageous and factual lie they are running.

Here's the truth when it comes to clearances: When you leave a position that requires one, whether in government or private industry (e.g. for a DOD contractor) you are "read out" of whatever programs you were in, reminded (strongly, requiring your written acknowledgement) of your continuing requirement to keep your damn mouth shut and your clearance is deactivated at that moment in time.

It remains "current" but is not active and thus your ability to access and possess classified information ends at that instant.

Two years later it expires and requires a re-investigation (unless it was going to come up for re-investigation sooner, in which case that shorter time frame controls.)

You cannot have access to classified information without (1) a need to know, which isn't your decision to make; that comes from the sponsoring organization whether some part of the government or a contractor authorized to work with such information and (2) an active, not "current", clearance of the same or higher level and, in the case of SCI or SAP programs, a specific read-in on the program in question.

There is utterly no reason for a person who has a formerly-active clearance in a former administration, and no reasonable expectation of working with classified information in the present administration (because he or she has been enough of a dick, whether in public or private, that said administration would never employ them) to keep said clearance "active."

Why?

Because the current administration will be in office for four years even in the unlikely event the President was to be impeached, and the "current" status expires in two.

Therefore upon such a departure the clearance should always be immediately expired in each and every case since there is utterly zero reason to believe that it will be transitioned back from "current" to "active" during the window in which it can be.

The only reason for someone in such a position to want to maintain a clearance as "current" is for the person in question to use it as a marketing tool for their own personal aggrandizement or profit.

Both such acts would be, by definition, a violation of the terms on which said clearance was granted in the first place.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-08-14 11:51 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 150 references
[Comments enabled]  

Scratch another state off my maybe I should live there list....

The state judge who on Monday set a $20,000 bail for five defendants arrested at a remote New Mexico compound where authorities say children were being trained to conduct school shootings has a history of issuing low bail to violent offenders.

Judge Sarah Backus, an elected Democrat, ordered the two men and three women wear ankle monitors, have weekly contact with their attorneys and not consume alcohol or own firearms while on bail. She said although she was concerned by “troubling facts,” prosecutors failed to articulate any specific threats to the community.

Oh really?

Teaching kids to shoot up schools as an act of jihad isn't a "specific threat"?

Never mind the rather-clear evidence that one of the defendants kidnapped his son, crossed state lines unlawfully with him and that said kid ultimately died in no small part as a consequence?  Remember that this kid had specific medical needs -- needs which were unmet, and now the kid is missing, although a child's remains were found there (and are presumed to be him -- but this is not yet confirmed.)

This is "no specific threat" to the community either?

Yeah, ok.

It's not against the law to live in an "unconventional" manner.  But it is against the law to kidnap a child, and it is against the law to harbor a fugitive who has done so and fled across state lines.

So tell me once again what justification exists for this ruling and why the people of New Mexico stand for it?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

I've said this many times and will continue repeating it as many times as I have to until it sinks in:

No nation will survive if its economy does not have available a meaningful, life-sustaining set of options for those who are on the left side of the bell curve.

Fully half of all persons in a given nation are always on the left side of said bell curve.  The location of the center moves somewhat depending on the composition of a given population but half of the people are always on the left side.

The vast majority of those people must be able to find stable, life and family-sustaining employment that does not inherently require their own personal destruction within the economy.  This means they must be able to take care of not only themselves but a spouse and children as well on the income they can generate through productive, legitimate employment.

A "rampie" (ramp worker) at a regional airline makes about $15/hour.  This, against a standard 2,000 hour work year (50 weeks of 40 hours/week) is $30,000/year before taxes.  In high-tax / high cost-of-living locales, such as Seattle, it is flatly impossible for a family to live on this level of income.

As of July the average 2-bedroom apartment rent (a couple plus one or two kids sharing a room) in the Seattle area is just over $2,000/month.  That's $24,000 a year of after tax income just to afford a place to live -- flatly impossible on $30,000 a year in income as after taxes (remember, Social Security and Medicare take almost 8% off the top), even assuming a zero income tax, you won't have enough left to pay the power bill, say much less anything else.

Note that being a "rampie" is a job that someone near the middle of the bell curve or slightly to the left can do productively; it certainly is not something that a person materially to the left of the median can engage in and be successful at. It also isn't a "starter" job such as working in a fast-food restaurant.

In other words it is exactly the sort of job that has to be available for those on the left side of the curve, yet it fails to produce enough income for a modest family to survive.

The issue is not the wages paid.  It's the cost of living that has been imputed into everyone in the country via the back door whether that be through property taxes (raises rents) or otherwise.

It is not possible to "gift" enough through welfare and other "social supports" to fix this; those nations that have attempted it have all had their economies collapse.  Venezuela is just the latest but hardly the only example and Venezuela is chock-full of oil!  If anyone could have pulled it off it would have been them.

There are simply too many people on the left side (always half of the population!) to be able to "support" them through handouts and welfare in this fashion.  As a result the only answer that leads to a stable society and economy is for there to be opportunities sufficient to sustain a family available for the vast majority of those individuals -- certainly for all who are to the right of the 1SD cut-off on the left side of the curve.

Health care monopolies are largely responsible for this state of affairs today; indeed they are the single biggest cause of it.

They raise pension and city operating costs, thereby forcing property taxes (and thus rents) higher.

Worse, they are a direct tax on all persons and employees; not only do they hit you out-of-pocket they directly-suppress wages since those "benefits" are directly applicable to employee cost and as a result increases there are directly subtracted from raises you would otherwise receive in cash compensation.

And finally, they directly impact the price of all essential goods and services you must buy to remain alive since they are imposed on everyone and thus reflect back into the price of everything, from food to electricity to water and garbage collection.

This not only has to be stopped it must be reversed and those "businesses" that have caused it destroyed.  There are plenty of legal tools available here and now to do so and yet through both Democrat and Republican congresses and Presidencies neither party will directly take it on.  They're not only compromised they're both being directly bribed and likely blackmailed as well into not doing so, and that extends all the way down to the State Attorneys General and local prosecutors, any of which could also bring anti-trust actions against same since there are State laws against this conduct those individuals also refuse to enforce.

Now add to it that Seattle is the base of the left-leaning firms that have participated with glee in destroying middle-class jobs by offshoring higher level labor and bringing in H1b holders to suppress wages of people nominally on the right side of the curve -- those in the "middle-right" portion!  Rather than pay someone $80,000 or $100,000 a year to program they'll bring in folks from India who will work for $50,000 and put up with slave-like conditions because their ability to stay in the US is tied to their employer; they have zero mobility and negotiating leverage.

Between these firms and the manufacturing companies like GM, Ford and others who send their labor to Mexico (for $4/hour instead of $35) what's the guy in the middle to left side of the bell curve to do?  He'll never be a genius yet any successful economy and nation that does not wish to wind up with a civil war or violent revolt must have a means for him to be successful and be able to raise a family.

Today the simple fact of the matter is that he does not; those opportunities have been systematically and intentionally destroyed.

Is it any surprise that someone who is backed into a corner -- despite working hard and staying clean (drug tests, etc) yet is unable to provide for himself and his family would eventually snap and do something nasty?  Exactly how much stress placed upon someone like this man by a gang of rapacious bastards, violating 100+ year old law with impunity and by doing so screwing half the nation blind so they can make another billion dollars is expected to be tolerated without any sort of pushback?

How far does it go before said person loses their mind?

The surprise isn't that this guy had a few screws loose.

It's that millions of others haven't done similar things.

Yet.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-08-13 06:57 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 385 references
[Comments enabled]  

So 100+ "media outlets" want to both destroy themselves and their advertisers?

Really?

It appears this isn't "fake news" -- it's real, and it's going to happen this week.

The Boston Globe’s editorial page is proposing a coordinated editorial response from publications across the United States to President Trump’s frequent attacks on the news media.

‘‘We are not the enemy of the people,’’ said Marjorie Pritchard, a deputy managing editor of the Globe, referring to a characterization of journalists that Trump has used in the past. The president, who contends he has largely been covered unfairly by the press, also employs the term ‘‘fake news’’ often when describing the media.

You're just liars.  Does that make you an enemy of the people?

Well, that depends on what your alleged statement of intent is, and what you actually deliver -- doesn't it?

‘‘I hope it would educate readers to realize that an attack on the First Amendment is unacceptable,’’ she said. ‘‘We are a free and independent press, it is one of the most sacred principles enshrined in the Constitution.’’

I thought the First Amendment included the right to say things you disagree with -- including the President, for that matter?

Or is the First Amendment only for words you like?

Trump is free to call you "fake news" and if you honor the First Amendment then by the very principle you claim you must respect his derision of you.  It is only if you do not, and in fact want to arrogate to yourself power you don't have -- to censor information and opinion you disagree with -- that you would claim otherwise.

Yet that is exactly what you propose here -- to shout down someone you disagree with, just as the so-called "new media" in the form of places like Facesucker, Twatter and Goolag want to do the same thing and in fact are with people they don't like.

May I remind you that "hate speech" is not only in the eye of the beholder it is explicitly protected under the US Constitution's First Amendment because the very term "hate speech" is subjective.

So where is your support of Alex Jones' right to speak?

Is he detestable?  I believe so.  I think the guy is a kook.

But that doesn't give me the right to forcibly shut him up.

The right -- even the kooky, far right -- doesn't show up at a restaurant and physically assault people.  The far left does -- routinely.  May I remind you that it was the far left that literally prevented then-candidate Trump from speaking in Chicago, and the means by which they did so was through the initiation of violence?  So-called "antifa" adherents, many of whom are white, show up in masks reminiscent of the KKK's white hoods -- except in black.  They accost police officers and claim they're all "racist" -- even when the officers are all black themselves!  And that group refuses to allow a peaceful march to take place without throwing bottles and destroying property -- because they don't like the message.

Where is the reporting on the video evidence that over the weekend a mob of antifa thugs assaulted news crews -- left-leaning, mainstream media news crews?  There was more than one incident yet I haven't seen one report on that in the so-called "mainstream media."  Why not?

Cannot two dozen people with a point of view that others find offensive speak without being assaulted with bottles, sticks and other assorted weapons?  If not then what sort of "Free Speech" and "First Amendment" does the media claim to support?

Time to cut the crap folks -- The First Amendment isn't there to protect inoffensive speech.  In point of fact it exists specifically to protect speech others find offensive and outrageous because nobody ever tries to ban the other sort!

Second, the First Amendment only guarantees your right to speak; it does not provide a promise that you will be listened to nor does it give you a right to demand a response to your questions.  No member of the press has that right -- the NY Times does not, CNN does not, pMSNBC does not and I do not.  We are all free to ask but that's where our rights begin and end.

The White House has no obligation to provide press conferences.  It has no obligation to credential any particular person or anyone at all.  It has no duty to respond and in fact common decency dictates that if you cannot be decent and reasonable in the time, place and manner of your questions then the Press Secretary or the President himself has every right to flatly ignore those who behave in a boorish manner, and in the extreme case, to expel those doing so.

The media is free to be as ridiculously biased as it wishes.  It is even free to lie about its bias, which it does -- daily.  Indeed it's even free to write gang-style editorials blasting the President.

But if they think doing so advances the cause of the First Amendment may I remind them that a mob is a mob is a mob, no matter which side of an argument said mob is on.

Collusive, gang-style behavior should not -- and indeed must not -- be rewarded.

I call upon the White House to permanently ban all such mob members from the press pool, and for all reasonable Americans to not only blackball all papers that run such editorials but also to blackball all their advertisers -- permanently.

That's legal, and it's entirely appropriate in response to the outrageous hypocrisy displayed by these organizations, funded entirely by those who spend money advertising therein.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-08-11 07:02 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 969 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is going to be a tough slog for many of you folks, but you need to do it.

I will also be using this article as a gauge; its popularity and circulation will directly guide my future decisions.

First, I want you to read this in its entirety, from a Priest.  This isn't really news to many people, myself included, but coming from someone with personal, inside experience you cannot discount or otherwise dismiss it.  It's real.

The lesson found in that missive isn't really on the Catholic Church; if you confine your thinking to it you're making a grave mistake.

No, it's "big data" in general, and it's why we cannot allow it under anything approaching the terms we've permitted thus far.

The article points out that during the process of "formation", that is, when one is seeking to be a priest, it is inherently part of the process for an exhaustive examination of every part of you to be undertaken and documented.  The Church has very good reasons for this, and they have obviously determined that it's not only necessary but "proper", and used properly it likely is.

The problem is that there are evil people everywhere, and once that data is amassed if they can get to it they both can and will use it -- improperly.

The usual refrain from the public is that "I have nothing to hide", so "who cares?"

That's missing the point; such data not only exposes what you've done but where you're vulnerable.

Read that article however many times you must for it to sink in.  If a priest -- or priest-to-be -- didn't have anything the evil people could use to force them to remain in line and silent, or even worse, to cover up for outrageously evil acts they would find some way to create it!  So if they figured out that your "kryptonite" rested in liking women, well, you'd be assigned to work with a group of young, attractive women.  If they figured out you might be a pedarest?  Girl's (or boys!) soccer coach!  And so on.

What you have in that article is documentation of the weaponization of information that stretches back decades, long before we had computers, big data, cheap disks and servers.  This was information divulged in confidence and written down on old-fashioned paper -- and then abused for nefarious, evil, heinous purpose.  It was used for the explicit creation of monsters so you can blackmail said monster to do as you wish.  That kids -- and adults -- get abused in the process is of no consequence to those undertaking this evil!

Spycraft, in the international sense, is mostly about compromising people.  Nobody is iron-clad strong all the time and in all areas.  Nobody.  The classic "spy movie" example is the cute, young woman sent in to seduce the man, frequently with a few drinks, hopefully getting access to whatever she desires by sleeping with him.  This is cliche because it's true, but prior to "big data" determining where the weakness was and how to exploit it either directly or by finding a way to blackmail you later on took quite a lot of work.  This meant that it was only undertaken to target a few, very-interesting people -- and the risk of getting caught while trying to both amass the information and abuse it was quite high too.

This sort of data collection, analysis and abuse no longer requires any work at all, it now applies to everyone, and under current law and regulation it is impossible to not only know what's been collected (everything), how it's been analyzed (in every possible way) and who has or does access it for what purpose.

This must be not just stopped but retroactively forced out into the open with full disclosure in each and every instance to each and every person, along with hard, death penalty level enforcement for future violations.

If we don't do that then you will continue to be targeted.

Just to repeat in case that last sentence didn't sink in: CONTINUE to be targeted.

You already have been targeted and abused and in fact are abused every single day.  For car insurance, homeowners insurance, rate of interest and terms on a credit card or other loan, in housing and employment.  If you ever become "interesting" to people in power (e.g. you want to run for office, even something as simple as a school board) then suddenly it gets far worse in that all of that previously-collected data will be analyzed and used to either discover something with which you can be blackmailed now or, if there isn't anything yet your weaknesses will be analyzed and you will be continually tested until you fail and create the means to blackmail you.

Now you know why "Just-US" Roberts upheld Obamacare.  You may not know what they (the medical industry, to be specific) got him with, but you can be assured they did.  There were rumors of irregularities in his and his wife's adoption of their kids; true or not, who knows.  Obama, same deal.  There were myriad rumors of him being interested in men; these days, so what?  But what if one or more them wasn't 18?  Was that it?  I have no damn clue but this much I'm sure of -- this is what is being done with that data and has been for a long time.

What I can assure you is that this sort of tactic is as old as spying and over the last couple of decades it has become available on a far "cheaper" basis to a whole host of people -- and now is available to be used by anyone of evil intent against virtually anyone in any position where compromising them is of value.

It must be assumed that every single sitting Congressperson, Supreme Court Justice, President (reasonably-recent past and present), Governors and most State legislators along with nearly all decision-making level individuals (such as Judges) at the State and Federal government levels are in fact under active blackmail threat right here, right now, every single day.  This likely also extends to many county, city and local officials.

Note that in the linked article one of the "defensive measures" the creeps used, along with their enablers, is to explicitly target priests they cannot seduce to violate their vows and intentionally go to confession before them, thereby sealing their ability to speak.  What do you think politicians and others in power do now with attorneys?  Same thing -- they go "hire" one and suddenly -- bang, can't talk because of attorney-client privilege.  If you can't seduce them (but they'll try that first -- and you can bet on that as that's a much more powerful tool) then find a means of stuffing a sock in their mouth via some privileged relationship.

There is utterly nobody who is safe from this.

Ever.

Nor can you be made safe from it.

Nobody is God, and nobody is Superman.

The only means to stop it is to make abuse of such information a capital felony and force into the open all who abuse it so they can be executed, making it your absolute civil right to know of all such data collection, distribution and sale along with all aggregations of same and the purpose for which it is done in every single case -- and to make concealment of the collection, sale, or purpose for which such data is used from you in any form proof of evil intent equivalent to any other capital offense.

Simply put anyone collecting and using said data must be forced, under penalty of capital felony conviction and death, to disclose each time said data is used, by whom, exactly how it is used, for what purpose and where the data was and is sent, with such being a positive duty for anyone holding same.

When you get an insurance quote, for example, the company must tell you not just that it used a "consumer report" (which they do) but exactly what data they obtained, from who they obtained it and the specifics of all the data they obtained, analyzed and how they did so to arrive at whatever result was obtained, in detail, sufficient for you to recreate in person their "scoring" and reach the same result.

In short that data must be yours -- your property and thus your right to know how, when, why and by whom it was used -- by virtue of being about and generated by your actions -- always.

It must be explicitly unlawful to collect, sell, collate or "work" this data for any purpose other than those explicitly disclosed and agreed to, in advance and all collectors and sellers of such data must be held equally responsible for any violation later on, including through their own negligence as if it was intentional conduct.

Violations must result in everyone involved being personally and criminally liable and upon conviction being executed, with any company involved being instantly dissolved.  No ifs, ands or buts.

No exceptions can be permitted other than for US Government actions aimed at foreign nationals who are not protected under US Law and yes, this includes government agencies that collect and abuse information now -- all of them.

This must happen now.  Period.

If it doesn't you can literally kiss our nation -- and anything approaching "freedom" -- goodbye.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)