The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets - Category [Politics]
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
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. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.


Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

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 be complete (NOT a "pitch"), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. Pitch emails missing the above will be silently deleted. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

Category thumbnail

Seriously man.

What the hell are you doing.

I get it.  You're worried about pandering to women.  Well, you either stand on The Rule of Law or you do not.

Clearly, you do not.

Therefore, I am now voting for Cthulhu.

**** you.

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump quickly walked back a statement he made earlier Wednesday that if abortion were illegal in the United States, then women who have the procedure should be punished - saying later that only those who performed the procedure should be punished.

“If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman,” Trump said in a written statement. “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb.”

Earlier, at a taped MSNBC town hall to be aired later Wednesday, Trump said if abortions were illegal, women should be held responsible.

Sorry, but no.

Yes, it was a trick question, designed to elicit a "wrong" answer that can then be used for "gotcha."

That doesn't matter.

If abortion is made illegal then everyone conspiring to perform one, which I remind you includes the person who purchased the service, is a co-conspirator and equally guilty under long-standing legal principles.

Put bluntly, should abortion be made illegal on a blanket basis, declared as murder, then anyone who solicits one has put out a "hit" on a human being as a matter of law and must be punished accordingly.

With that said, I happen to believe that the Supreme Court decision Roe .v. Wade, which held that only a first-trimester abortion was unconditionally legal, is defensible on both history and the law.

But.... if that decision is overturned, and there are clear arguments that it should be, then nobody who is involved in the decision to what becomes at that time an act of murder can be excused.

As for both Kascish and Cruz, neither is pro-life or pro-rule of law.  You cannot claim to support the rule of law and excuse those who fund an act of lawbreaking and induce the act of lawbreaking itself through their offer of money.

That's outrageous and anyone who claims otherwise has no business being in the White House.

I'm forced to vote for Cthulhu once again and this, friends, may well be my last comment on this political cycle.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Category thumbnail

OK folks, time for some truth.

Jeb claims he was a budget hawk and "cut spending" during his time in office from 1999 to 2007.


Your definition of "cut" must different than mine Jeb:

 by tickerguy

Incidentally the population of Florida went from 15.76 million to 18.53 million during that time period, or an increase of 18% -- far less than spending increased.

If you want to know why Trump was outright calling Jeb a liar on stage there it is, in numbers.  Jeb is a liar and this sort of crap ought to lead to him being charged and imprisoned for attempted fraud upon the public.

He didn't shrink state spending he basically doubled it.

Now Jeb claims he had a 4.4% economic growth rate.  However, government spending went up at roughly 7%, as anyone with basic knowledge of the Rule of 72 knows is the rate that gets you a doubling in 10 years.

In other words he grew government at a rate almost twice that of the alleged economy, and what's even worse is that he financed a huge part of that on the back of the common Floridian with the housing bubble that blew up right after he left office.

Even the Wall Street Journal admitted to this in July of 2015.

In addition the state's debt went from $15 -> $23 billion, and annual interest payments nearly doubled from $900 million to $1.7 billion.  (Source: Miami Herald)

I lived here the entire time, incidentally.  Jeb's claim that the economy was "booming" was a load of crap.  What we saw during that time was ramping fees and costs, which have not abated (e.g. MidBay Bridge anyone?), massive spending increases and crazy, unconscionable acts by local and county officials (including but not limited to school boards) to try to cover up what they had done -- such as our local system that tried to get the people to pay twice for roof and refrigerator replacements in the schools.  (See, they had not bothered with a sinking fund from tax receipts, so when the inevitable end-of-life came they tried to sucker the people into accepting a sales tax override.  We told them to go screw a goat, and justly so.)

To finance all of this the state encourage and looked the other way while the housing bubble doubled prices on houses, which of course came with ramping real estate taxes -- and all of those houses were built with illegal immigrant labor that paid no taxes and broke the law, yet Jeb's "regulators" in the licensing of said contractors did exactly zero to pull the licenses of all of those builders.

Jeb Bush deserves prison, not the nomination.

Trump was telling the truth last night.  Jeb, on the other hand, was lying through his teeth.

I was here and witnessed all of it, from start to finish, and in any event the math is what it is.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Category thumbnail

This sort of article is flat-out nauseating.

It starts by claiming to explain, but what it really tries to do is parent.  Yes, parent you.  An adult.  It attempts to claim the mantle of telling you what you should be and in fact are voting for and wanting in a politician.


Indeed, Trump caught the right wave at the right time – and it has yet to crest.

And feeds the wave with every brazen statement, like this week’s Muslim travel ban.

The fact is, the more his language is over the top, the stronger his position appears to be at the top.

But is this what Republican primary voters really want in their nominee – a brash outsider who takes on anyone and everyone?  Or do they want, as they told us before, a moderate with real results?

The simple truth is, they want to have their cake… eat it, and then shove it in Washington’s face.  Their frustration is borders on rage – and Trump is their megaphone.

But they’re equally desperate for someone who doesn’t just rail against the problems; they want someone who can also solve them.  Our national polls and voter focus groups demonstrate this again and again.

That’s why the true frontrunner is not Donald Trump.

The real frontrunners are – or will ultimately be – Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

Oh really?

Neither Rubio or Cruz has the first clue about ISIS and radical Islam.  Neither will call it by its name.  Both have sat idly by while the party machinery went so far as to call Trump unAmerican for proposing an act that Jimmy Carter took a number of years ago without any such calls being made for his head.

Both are convicted internationalists, interventionists and believers in thuggery.  Both are ineligible for the office and of the two Cruz has no excuse of infancy or dependence (not that it legally matters) as he held adult Canadian citizenship, an act that brings to the fore the very reason for our constitutional prohibition on divided loyalties.

Listen to Rubio explain his plan for the innovation economy.  For improving education.  For making career-oriented job training mean something again. Listen to him explain not just the intricacies of his tax plan – but the benefits of it as well.

Listen to Cruz talk about his plan to defeat radical Islamic terror. For reining in wasteful Washington spending. His solutions for American-made energy to create jobs and protect our national security.

Oh really?  What plans are those?  Neither has a plan to do anything about the Health Care debacle, which is a huge problem -- in fact, it's the problem.  "Repeal and replace" sounds great, but replace with what?  Where are the promises of prosecution for the existing acts that by any reasonable definition rise to felony violations of long-standing federal law -- the Sherman, Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts?

Nowhere, that's where.  Neither of these clownfaces has any sort of cogent plan to deal with any of that, including the most-outrageous and egregious parts of it, the rank violations of the "first sale doctrine" that, were it to be enforced, would instantly force prices to level for drugs to flatten between nations and resolve a large part of the problem.  I remind everyone that college textbook publishers tried to run this same crap recently and were shot down in the courts, so there's plenty of precedent.

Of course the medical scam doesn't end there.  If you fixed it all of the budget problems at the Federal, State and local levels would disappear immediately and permanently without raising a dime in taxes.  The Federal deficit would become a surplus and as a result consumer purchasing power would rise every year instead of falling.  That outcome would be the result of math, by the way, not politics.

Do you think Trump doesn't know, as a businessman who has been writing big checks to this monopoly for decades, that this is a problem?  He most-certainly does.  Now explain to me how Cruz or Rubio has any experience with any of it.  They don't.  I do, because I wrote those checks on behalf of my employees.  Trump does because he has as well.  Rubio and Cruz have evidenced zero understanding of any of it.

Rubio has no idea how to improve education.  No amount of federal involvement will ever do any of it.  Remember that we were told that the Department of Education would be abolished under the "Contract With America."  Was it?  No, that was a lie.  Rubio is also lying and the electorate knows it.

The Republican party is imploding because it is incapable of telling the truth.  It is imploding because of patronizing little ****heads like you, David, who think you can tell us what to think and who to vote for.

You claim that most people don't believe Trump could deport 11+ million illegals.  True, but he doesn't have to.  All he has to do is lock up all of your damned "friends" that employ them and 10.9 million will leave on their own. We can certainly deport the remaining 100,000 that decide that gang membership is a better idea.

And by the way, maybe we should consider you to be part of that gang -- a gang going out of style, and one that's being slowly, but certainly, ejected from the political sphere.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Category thumbnail

Oh this is terribly rich -- and funny.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Two years ago, Augustus Sol Invictus walked from central Florida to the Mojave Desert and spent a week fasting and praying, at times thinking he wouldn't survive. In a pagan ritual to give thanks when he returned home, he killed a goat and drank its blood.

Now that he's a candidate for U.S. Senate, the story is coming back to bite him.

The chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida has resigned to call attention to Invictus' candidacy in hopes that other party leaders will denounce him. Adrian Wyllie, who was the Libertarian candidate for governor last year, says Invictus wants to lead a civil war, is trying to recruit neo-Nazis to the party and brutally and sadistically dismembered a goat.

It's an awkward situation for the small party that's trying to gain clout.

Hahahaha.... oh that's why Adrian resigned eh?  C'mon Adrian, cut the crap.

This is the well-justified comeuppance for a party that lost its view of what it really stood for quite some time ago.  I ought to know -- I was part of it for a while and resigned in disgust after the state party endorsed Gary Johnson for President, a man who wasn't very Libertarian and who famously stated nobody committed any crimes when it came to the financial crisis.

Oh really, nobody committed any crimes eh?  At the time I put forward a scrolling list of crimes.

Of course the so-called Libertarian Johnson did more than just that.  He also refused to engage on the medical monopoly issue, despite the fact that there are even more crimes found there!

It may be true that the Republicans and Democrats have no principles that matter; they simply run whatever puppet is convenient.  But the Libertarians try to claim they're different; sadly, they're not.

What Sol Invictus has done is thrown this in the party's face in such an outrageous and blatant fashion that it exceeded any thinking individual's tolerance.  But the seed of this disease in the Florida Libertarian Party goes back a hell of a long time, far longer in point of fact, it appears, than the 2012 campaign.

I left the party after attempting to put a stop to this crap by insisting that the party live to its principles and failing to carry the day in that regard.  Adrian himself got involved in his own little game of not really Libertarian, in my opinion, with his driver license screed in which he "refused" to renew his license over Real IDinstead of arguing that he had a right to travel and one cannot force licensing of a right.  There's actually case law precedent on this point, albeit very old case law, but to my knowledge it has never been cited and then overturned.

Instead Adrian did the politician thing and argued that it is "unjust" (e.g. unconstitutional) to be forced to positively identify oneself to obtain said "license."  As I pointed out to Adrian at the time this was a stupid line of attack because if one accepts that the government may license travel by the means common in the present day for non-commercial personal conveyance of one's person and effects, in other words that is not a right but a privilege that the government may grant (because it owns that right and thus may delegate it as it sees fit), then you lose instantly because there is a compelling state interest in being able to prove that only persons eligible to exercise said privilege are granted said license!

In short as I've argued many times a right cannot be subject to license or permit; the two are polar opposites.  You are granted a license or permit to do a thing otherwise prohibited.

The Libertarians have utterly failed in this regard in that their statement of principles and alleged party platform are clear yet they use mealy-mouth words such as "should" instead of "must" and "shall."  This in turn gives rise to the sort of twisted argument-by-expedience, and thus a refusal to demand that candidates adhere to the party principles or be disavowed.

It is a fact of law that one has only one means by which you can prevent someone from running on a given party ballot in this state, and that is to primary said person and beat them.  If you cannot manage to muster enough people, enough money and enough support to do that then anyone can show up on your ballot whether you like it or not, and that's exactly what happened.

The party got what it had coming to it in the form of Sol Invictus; sometimes it takes a while for the cosmic wheel of karma to come around, but it nearly always, given enough time, does.

Goodnight Gracie.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2012-10-04 17:19 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 1876 references
Category thumbnail

Here's The Bill that either Obama or Romney could propose and demand be passed.

(For that matter so could Gary Johnson, and if he had a lick of sense, he would as this would be a "break the glass" moment for the Libertarians, but I digress...)


An Act to redress the imbalances in the economy related to health care products and services, enforce the law, improve patient outcomes, enhance access to treatment modalities, decrease costs and open competition in the Medical Industry.


Article I - Competition

  1. The Sherman, Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts shall apply to medical commodities, services and related products without exception, including but not limited to pharmaceuticals, hospital services, clinical services, medical devices, implements, drugs and supplies, financial services such as payment plans and health insurance or any other service or good used or provided for the purpose of promoting health, treating or diagnosing disease, provided that said goods, products or services are marketed, sold, advertised or used anywhere inside the United States and its territories.

  2. Medical providers shall post via conspicuous method and bill at a level price for their services to all users of like kind and quantity without regard to the means of payment, subject only to reasonably-defensible discounts for volume of service or product rendered or sold to each individual consumer. 

  3. All State CON laws and other regulations that serve to prevent, deter, bar or impair medical good or service providers from entrance or exit to or from a market area, where said facilities do or may serve customers on an interstate basis, are hereby preempted and void under the Interstate Commerce Clause to the US Constitution.

  4. The doctrine of first sale shall be applied to all medical and health-related commodities, pharmaceuticals, supplies and goods, including but not limited to drugs, medical devices, implements and health-related products, provided that such goods are truthfully and lawfully labeled as to their origin, manufacturer and contents, irrespective of their point of original purchase.

  5. No manufacturer, distributor or other seller of medical goods or commodities may prohibit by contract or other provision the effects of Article I Section 4, and any such clause in existing contracts for sale are hereby declared void as a violation of public policy.

  6. Medical goods and commodities permitted or lawfully offered for sale in nations and territories other than the United States may be imported, marketed and sold for consumption and use in the United States irrespective of FDA approval provided that any drug, device, implement or commodity not approved by the FDA shall be conspicuously labeled that it does not have FDA approval in no less than 14 point white print on a black background on all bulk and, where applicable, individual use or dispensed packages.  All such unapproved drugs, devices, implements and commodities shall bear or have enclosed with their packaging truthful information as to their exact contents, purity, method of action, expected benefits and known risks and side effects of its use.  All such unapproved drugs, devices, implements and commodities shall be explicitly disclosed to the consumer before use or administration by any licensed medical facility or physician and an explicit release shall be obtained from said consumer in advance of the use of such unapproved drugs, devices, implements or commodities.


Article II -- Access To Medical Care And Records

  1. EMTALA is hereby repealed.

  2. Privately-run and operated medical clearing firms are hereby authorized who citizens and visitors to the United States may register with to document verifiable means of coverage or payment for potential medical services and products.  These firms shall be regulated only as to privacy of information maintained.

  3. Such registration shall include not only insurance coverage by traditional health insurance firms but also registration of escrowed funds or other unencumbered and liquid assets available for disbursement in the event of unplanned and emergency medical expense.

  4. Medical providers may query any such registry only for a bona-fide purpose of determining whether a proposed procedure is covered for payment, and shall not issue more than one query per patient, per medical incident without that patient or their agent's explicit approval.

  5. Registries shall not provide information on coverage or escrowed and liquid limits beyond a response indicating whether the explicit and queried amount proposed to be billed is or is not covered.

  6. Patients shall own all records in any such registry, including the record of all inquiries and shall have a right of inspection of any such records during reasonable business hours and by reasonable means.

  7. Medical records shall be the property of the consumer to whom they pertain, and shall be provided to and may be maintained by the consumer upon his or her reasonable request.  No provider shall provide access to or permit the copying of any such record to any third party without the explicit authorization of the consumer or his or her lawful representative, except where applicable statute mandates the disclosure of said records such as in the case of communicable disease or mandatory reporting statutes.

  8. A registry or medical provider that violates any provision of this section shall be liable for all damages that a consumer shall suffer, but not less than $25,000 (twenty-five thousand dollars US) per incident in liquidated damages if the actual amount of damages shall be less.

  9. EMS providers and systems shall maintain a registry of charitable hospitals and other providers of medical care willing to provide services to those who have no verifiable or actual means of payment so as to be able to expeditiously make decisions on transport of indigent patients, and shall update their listing of such available care facilities not less than once daily.


Article III - Enforcement

  1. Consumers, employers or other parties harmed by violations of this act shall have a private right of recovery for all harm sustained in triplicate, but not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each occurrence.

  2. Each day that any such violation occurs shall constitute a separate and distinct civil offense.

  3. Willful and intentional violations of consumer privacy, or any act of conspiracy between parties to violate any provision of this act shall be a Federal Felony Criminal Offense punished by not less than 2 nor more than 20 years of confinement and a fine of not less than $10,000 or more than $100,000 for each count, except that if permanent physical injury shall occur to any person as a consequence of said violation the penalty shall be not less than 10 nor more than 25 years of confinement and a fine of not less than $50,000 nor more than $250,000 for each count, and if death to any person shall occur as a consequence of said violation the penalty shall be not less than 25 years to life of confinement and not less than $100,000 nor more than $2,000,000 for each count.  Each person who shall suffer financial or personal injury from such conduct shall constitute a separate and distinct offense, liability shall be joint and severable among all so-involved, minimum fines per occurrence may not be reduced and all criminal sentences shall be served consecutively without regard to any other law, regulation or statute.


That would pretty much do it, I suspect (that is, cut the cost of medical care by about 80% -- if not more.)

View this entry with comments (opens new window)