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.


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.

2018-10-14 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 255 references
[Comments enabled]  

There's been plenty of discussion over whether services such as Apple's iTunes, Google Play, Facebook, Twitter and similar can ban users on a purely-discretionary basis.

The common argument is that because they are private companies they can create whatever policies they'd like so long as they do not violate existing civil rights law (e.g. you can't ban someone because they're black.)

But this isn't merely about services such as Facebook, Twitter and similar -- now the ability of content creators to monetize their work is at stake. As of the 21st of September  Infowars has been notified that Paypal is refusing to process payments for subscriptions as well as merchandise.

If you remember in 2017 the notorious neo-Nazi web site Daily Stormer was basically run off the Internet -- first by GoDaddy and then in rapid sequence multiple other firms, including Google.  They were denied the ability to buy DNS and hosting service as they were effectively black-balled by dozens of providers of these basic utility-class services more or less "all at once."

More recently Microsoft threatened with loss of their cloud computing provider, Microsoft's Azure, unless they made changes to their operations.  Microsoft was and remains unwilling to provide a specific list of changes they required or specifics of any alleged violations of their terms of service.

The premise that a private company can refuse service (or sales) to anyone is a fundamental part of Capitalism; the theory is that if one retailer does not wish to do business with you then another will.  But these campaigns of harassment are far more sinister and troubling because they now encompass the utility services that underlie the Internet's infrastructure.

This must not be allowed to stand.

Here's an example.  A hypothetical neo-Nazi wishes to buy a domain and purchase web services to air his views.   However repugnant the right to hold those views and express them is protected by the First Amendment.

Do businesses involved in selling Internet utility services have the right to refuse to sell to him?

To put your views on the Internet you need several different services, not just one.

1. A circuit or means of delivery and interchange with other users on the Internet.  Your cellphone or cable modem is an example of the "end connection" in this regard; in the publisher category this is either an ISP or some sort of a cloud provider.  This circuit is not just a line; in some way you have to connect to an interchange point, much like a phone on a physical wire is useless unless it connects to a switch so you can call other people.

2. A DNS or "nameserver" service.  This is what turns "" into an IP address in the format "" or, in the IPv6 vernacular, "2501:......".  This is an essential service for the modern web because it is not only commonplace it is virtually always true on shared hosting or services of any sort that multiple names are bound to one IP address.  For example "" and "" may both point to the same numerical IP address; the server determines which request goes where by the presentation of the domain name.

3. A computer (server), either a physical device or a virtual piece of a larger physical computer.  These days most small and moderate sites are run on virtualizations, not physical machines -- it's much less expensive and most small and moderate-sized sites simply don't need the entire power of a modern computer, so spreading it among other clients makes it less expensive for everyone.

4. The software that takes the message(s) you provide and formats and delivers them to others.  In the web world this is often Apache (a freely available piece of code) although not always by any means -- there are many other packages, some free and some commercial, that perform this function.  In addition there are services that perform this function in other ways (which are software packaged up with a "brand") such as Facebook and Twitter.

The question before us today is where is the line between a company able to refuse service to anyone and not?

I think we can agree that the neo-Nazi cannot be refused electrical service at his house.  Nor can he be refused water, sewer and trash pickup.  He also cannot be refused access to a toll road or bridge, even if privately run, so long as he pays the tolls like everyone else.

But he can be refused seating in a local restaurant.

What's the distinction?

Simple: The neo-Nazi's views are not implicitly endorsed by the establishment in the case of electrical, sewer and toll road service.

It is instantly obvious to an observer that the neo-Nazi's words on Facebook are in fact associated with the company Facebook.  Ditto for those on Twitter. But it isn't obvious to the public that the neo-Nazi bought his DNS or Web Service from GoDaddy or Amazon.  If one was curious you would have to dig for the information.  Even so these providers bear little risk of being co-branded with that neo-Nazi.

As such we should draw through regulation and law some simple bright-line tests.

Facebook can ban whoever it wants, for whatever reason.  So can Twitter.

GoDaddy, however, cannot ban a user from DNS registration no matter the purpose so long their site is legal.  Ditto for Amazon's AWS, Microsoft's Azure or any other cloud or hosting provider. Nor may providers refuse traffic interchange based on the viewpoints contained in their, or their customers, communications.

Twitter, in short, may ban anyone it wishes.  However, should they do so to any material degree there will be created an opportunity for a new Twitter, and anyone may start a competing service with essentially the same feature set.

What do we do with utility services that handle the flow of funds?

Traditional banks or fintech outfits such as PayPal  must not be allowed to discriminate against customers simply because they don't like their political views. Banking and monetary exchange is inherently a utility service and to deny same to any US Citizen as a consequence of their views is to attempt to "starve" a citizen for exercising their constitutionally-protected rights.

Thus the recent PayPal ban of Alex Jones must not stand, Master Card must not be able to ban Robert Spencer and neither can the decision of the bank that recently said "no" to a Florida candidate who supports the legalization of cannabis.  All of these are issue positions used to deny utility services.

We would not allow Florida Power and Light to cut off Nikki Fried's electricity because she supports the legalization of marijuana.  We must not also allow banks and modern utilities such as ISPs, domain providers and similar to effectively destroy people and political speech because they don't like the message, even though it's lawful.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-12 13:17 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 198 references
[Comments enabled]  

I'm dealing with my late Mother's estate and the number of bottom-feeding jackals who have been calling me is off-the-charts.  More than a few send surface mail as well.

The basic scheme is that they want to buy the house out of the estate for about half it's actual market value.

Uh huh.

That might be something someone who is a sole heir could agree to but if you're an Executor ("Personal Representative") for an estate where there are multiple heirs you're asking to get your butt sanctioned or even sued if you do a deal with these *******s.

Why?  Because you have a fiduciary responsibility to the Estate's heirs and devisees, that's why!  You have no more right to sell the property for half its fair market value and screw everyone else than you do to hold a bonfire with the cash in the estate on the driveway!

Now if you're the only heir then who cares -- if you wish to take half the value and do it right now, ok, that's fine.  It's your money; go ahead and burn it.

But if there are other heirs and/or devisees then doing that is legally equivalent to robbing the other people and they have every right to come after you -- if the Probate Judge doesn't ram you up the ass on his or her own!

What sort of bull**** bottom-feeding garbage is this?  I've gotten at least a half-dozen letters and phone calls of substantially the same substance thus far.  That these ****ers do not have the banhammer of the law come down on them for running this crap, when a fairly material percentage of those who they try it on are probably ignorant of the potential consequence and exposure they have is outrageous.

Here's my answer to all who try to pull this crap and, if they find someone who doesn't understand what they're responsible for and what fiduciary means said person risks winding up having their "thanks" in handling an estate coming in the form of being sued to beyond the orbit of Mars and potentially even bankrupted personally by these ****heads and their bottom-feeding bull****:


Needless to say I'm no longer "nice" to anyone who calls me with such an "offer."

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-10 16:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 769 references
[Comments enabled]  

Ok *******s, I'm calling you out.

There was no 155mph sustained wind anywhere on the ground in Michael's path.

There was no 140mph sustained wind anywhere on the ground in Michael's path.

There was no 130mph sustained wind anywhere on the ground in Michael's path.

There were 100-110mph sustained winds.  That's a nasty Cat 2, but not a 4 or 5.

There was a stormchaser on the ground, in a truck, that went through the eyewall and into the eye at Mexico Beach.

I know exactly where he was because I've been over there.  There were also multiple wind gauge readings in the same vicinity -- 110ish gusts, 90-100mph sustained.  Entirely believable given what I saw happen live on that stream watching the eyewall and eye pass over him, but not 155.

At 155 his truck would have been lifted and thrown; I would have watched him die on live video.  It didn't happen.

Yes, Mexico Beach and parts of PC got trashed -- mostly by surge.  No big shock there.  But most of those buildings you're seeing have intact roofs.  Not all (there's a fair bit of older stuff over there that was not designed to modern codes) but most.  And that's important because in a Cat4+ storm there's damn near nothing left; that's an EF3 tornado!

Hurricanes are nasty but let's stop with the bull****.  The video coming in (and the livestreams) do not support Cat 4 or 5 winds -- and neither does the available set of data from wind gauges right at impact.  In the same videos you see someone's roof go flying there's a billboard that's standing proud, tall and undamaged.  That does not happen in a Cat 4 storm.

The reason you board up your house is in evidence right there in those videos.  In a Cat 4 or 5 it does not matter as the entire building, unless it's reinforced concrete or similar, will be flattened.  If you get surged you're screwed.  The reason you board up your house is that in a Cat 1, 2 and moderate 3 if your house and roof is up to code and if you do not get hit with surge it will remain intact right up until the guy down the street, who doesn't have a place up to said code or has a bunch of crap laying around in his yard winds up generating missiles that go through your windows!

The "homes that were there and were moved" and are destroyed are nearly all mobile homes - and there are a lot of them in that area.That's very typical Cat 2 damage; most to all mobile homes will be destroyed in a Cat 2.  They simply cannot take 100mph winds.

I'm not trying to make light of this storm folks.  It was nasty at impact and I was fully-prepared to bug out if I had to.  As it stands we barely got tropical storm force winds here and only about an inch or so of rain.  Nothing; we get worse in a thunderstorm.  There are two videos up on my channel from the exact time the storm was coming into Mexico Beach about 20 minutes apart.

If you were between Panama City and Apalachicola, or even east to Carabelle and similar and in a place subject to surge, or in a mobile home, or in a structure not built to modern codes for the roof in particular then yes, you got it in the face.  But the damage I'm seeing is typical of a Cat 2 -- not a Cat 4.

Those running a politicized level of "reporting" on storms like this do a great disservice.  When an actual Cat 4 or 5 impact looms those who went through this one, didn't get surged and were in modern construction will stay and die.

We must put a stop to this sort of "grade inflation" especially among those doing it for political (e.g. Globull**** warming) reasons -- they are going to get people killed.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-09 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 208 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is one of the most-outrageously disgusting displays of flat-out partisanship I've seen in a long time -- and it's coming from the one place that this nation cannot afford it.

Let me remind you that (as Kagan points out) The Supreme Court has no guns and no army.  It relies on credibility, so Kagan says.  Of course she's lying -- it also relies on a phalanx of alleged "cops" -- including the FBI, all of them heavily armed, never mind the root of the Supreme Court's credibility: The Constitution.

But to state the court's credibility rests in the Constitution would be to invite an immediate revolution, and Kagan knows it -- for she has exactly zero intent toward, nor has she ever, demonstrated fidelity to same -- and neither has the Court in general for more than 100 years running.  In fact her and Sotomayer's entire premise upon the court, which has been made abundantly clear, is that the Constitution is a "living" document subject to the whims of the people sitting behind the USSC's bench.

This is an outrageous fraud that all members of the court (never mind so-called "law" professors) have rendered over the years and shoved down the American people's throat.

That this is a fraud is inherent in the Constitution itself for the Constitution provides explicit means by which it can be amended -- and thus puts the lie to any claim that such an "interpretation" is either correct or necessary.

Of course Kagan's argument devolves into the ugly reality that if the court's credibility is lost and you discern that the "enforcers" of said decisions intend to shoot your only remaining options are to die quietly or shoot first and die messily and loudly.

That's a crappy bargain but it's the one we've got and in fact it's the one Kagan just laid out herself.

The outrageous part of Kagan's words is that she excuses being the far-left wing along with Sotomayer, refusing to take any responsibility for being so.  In other words the responsibility to be a "centrist" and "toe the line" never rests with her, only with other people.

That's the mark of a tyrant; you do it, not me, I'll do whatever the hell I want.  In the context of a Supreme Court justice it is also a blatant violation of one's oath of office, a literal middle finger to the Constitution, and thus a demand for impeachment.

But of course we know that neither side of the aisle has any desire to enforce the Constitution and its boundaries as written -- we merely argue over which part of the Constitution, and we the people, will be raped blind on any given day.

So Kagan you go right ahead and try to run your thuggery -- let's see how it works out.

Comity is not a one-way street and if you think it is you're in for a rude surprise.  And by the way, Sotomayer looks like death.  What the hell is it with leftists -- she knows damn well she must not allow herself to become and remain fat, as she's a Type I diabetic yet she is at least double the healthy body mass of someone of her height and gender.  Down the road she has chosen lies misery, bankruptcy and death -- well, the middle for anyone other than her.  For her, of course, she gets to make other people pay for her carb-laden lifestyle, chasing same with monopolist-priced insulin you are forced to pay for and since she will not stop eating like a ****ing sow the eventual bill for the cut off hands and feet will also not be hers -- that bill too will be yours.

Never forget that she literally has the ability to vote herself money out of your pocket to pay for medical treatment and drugs that she has brought upon herself due to her own elective choice to stuff her pie hole.

A diabetic eating carbohydrates and being fat is no different than a junkie shooting heroin or a drunk grabbing a bottle of whiskey and demanding you pay for it plus, when they destroy their health, demanding you pay the hospital and other medical bills too.

Sotomayer ought to get a big **** you in response to that and be forced to cough up her own money for her own medical care -- in cash, at today's monopolist price.  Perhaps then she'd have an appreciation for what everyone else puts up with in this country.  But no!  She's perfectly happy and feels entitled to stick the boot on your neck and rob you -- literally.

Should the Supreme Court be considered legitimate given all this -- including Kagan's public refutation of her Oath of Office and Oath to the Constitution?  Oh Hell no.  Every single citizen of the United States ought to be erecting a big fat middle finger -- here and now.

If the court doesn't like this reality then the "Just-us"es can either alter their behavior, starting with Kagan and Sotomayer, or attempt to enforce their jackbooted tyranny and see if it works out for them.

Maybe it will and maybe it won't but there's something to be said for having actual skin in the game instead of forcing other people to take your risk and pay your bills.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-10-05 09:59 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 437 references
[Comments enabled]  

It really isn't.

The latest attack is that Kavanaugh lacks the temperament to be a Justice.

Oh really?

So one who wishes to perform a public service job, no matter the position, is supposed to sit and be questioned by people who have referred to you as "evil" and accused you of being a serial gang-rapist -- a capital felony -- without one shred of evidence and yet be polite in response?

I think not.

In fact the proper response to that is "pistols at 20 paces, *******!" and it wasn't that long ago where such a statement would merit exactly that response.

Funny how people didn't make that kind of claim unless they were willing to duel over it.  The potential for being immediately drilled in response to such a statement has a powerful effect in focusing your mind before your yap opens and, if it doesn't, then you tend to be removed from the gene pool.

No, my issue with Kavanaugh and the entire rest of the court, which I argue renders it entirely moot and something that the people of the United States should erect a big fat middle finger to (and dare the Justices to try to enforce their rulings) rests in this lie:

Kavanaugh concluded that if he's confirmed by the Senate to the vacant seat on the bench, he "will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law."


The First Amendment opens with Congress shall make no law.

It then lists Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Religion as three things Congress may not abridge through any law.

In addition the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant before a search can be conducted, signed by a judge, demonstrating probable cause that a crime has been committed.

Yet Kavanaugh has opined in formal rulings that NSLs (National Security Letters) are Constitutional.

No, they are not.

First, they permit searches and seizures without prior judicial review and without a finding of probable cause.  They are an administrative subpoena and by definition administrative subpoenas are all flatly unconstitutional.

Second, they contain a gag clause.

As such they violate both the First and Fourth Amendments.  Any judge or justice ruling such are constitutional has violated their oath of office and declared themselves in open armed rebellion against the Constitution of the United States since these outrages are inevitably served and enforced by armed members of the government.

recipient of such a NSL has every right under our Constitution to refuse that demand.  Of course that would result in said person getting shot, right?


In addition Kavanaugh believes in a "usual" test for firearms laws.  The Second Amendment, on the other hand, is clear:

The right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If you fail to understand how to parse the preamble to that statement and the difference between a dependent and independent clause go back to Grammar School. If you fail to understand that a right is something humans have that pre-dates government then you are either ignorant or a tyrant yourself.

The simple fact of the matter is that the NFA, GCA, Brady and more are all unconstitutional.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The 2nd Amendment is clear: The dependent clause explains why the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right all persons have and which in fact pre-dates all government, shall not be infringed.  If you read The Federalist and Anti-Federalist you will find that both groups debating the founding of the nation agreed that the federal government had no authority to regulate the arms owned and born by or to disarm the citizens AT ALL under ANY circumstances.

Indeed the entire debate among the Founders rested on whether the 2nd Amendment was necessary since both sides took as a matter of natural law the entire citizenry had a fundamental right to be armed in any way they so decided and to bear said arms when they wished or needed since such was an utter necessity arising from the natural law right to self-defense. Indeed the entire purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable you to say no to tyrants, whether the petty sort that robs you in the street or the organized sort that wear uniforms while claiming some government mandate and mean it.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting deer.  It is in fact about enforcing the natural law right to peaceful secession should it be asserted and the existing government reply is "NO!" -- exactly as the British Crown did.  May I remind you that the shooting started over exactly that point; the British attempted confiscation of powder and ball....

Shall not be infringed means what it says.  It leaves no wiggle room and it doesn't say "except for machine guns", "except if there are terrorist attacks in the country", or even "except if you previously committed a crime but have been released from court supervision."

If gun control advocates had passed such a Constitutional Amendment including such phrases then it would be constitutional, albeit still a violation of natural law.  But that hasn't happened and the historical record on the part of the Founders is not debatable.  Don't believe me -- go pick up The Federalist and Anti-Federalist and read both as they are the canonical source material.

Now granted, Kavanaugh is better in regard to the Second Amendment than many justices, before and now.  But that's like asking me if I'd like to get raped up the ass with the first inch of someone's penis or all eight inches, rather than having the debate be over whether******should be permitted in the first place or the attempt should be answered by a date with the gallows.

There is no question as to what the First, Second or Fourth Amendments say.  The question for today is one of time -- specifically, for how much longer the people will submit to a bunch of black-robed tyrants who have intentionally and serially, over well more than 100 years, ignored the very foundation of our nation while demanding that we perform fellatio upon them to suit their particular fetish-of-the-week any time they pick up a pen or open their mouths.  The question before us, in short, is at exactly what point we the people will again assert "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- and mean it.

Kavanaugh has no more right to call himself a Justice than does Stevens, Sotomayer, Kagan or for that matter the late Scalia.  Upon violating their oath of office for the first time all of them have voided any right to demand compliance with anything emitted from their putrid orifices and digits.

So no, this isn't really, from my point of view, about temperament.

Nor is it about drinking.

Or even about whether Kavanaugh stuck his penis in a college girl's face or grinded on Ford -- neither of which, by the way, I believe.

No, it's really about Congress and the court itself distracting you from the fact that the entire court is illegitimate and so is our Congress, both having voided their own right to demand anything from anyone by their own actions long ago and continuing to this very day.

THAT, and what we're going to do to address it, is the debate we should be having in this country in a political context before a bunch of someones decide that the only answer is to once again declare that the nation is too small for all of us to live in at once and further political debate is pointless.

We did that at Ft. Sumpter.

It got really sporty.

Do you really want to relive history or will you instead find your sanity?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)