The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
Cut The Crap - NOW

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.

There's three fingers of single-malt in my hand and it's beautiful....

[[Gallery image missing or removed]]

Email to make this unique piece of art yours!

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-01-13 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 261 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's unreasonable to expect a person to publicly state that the opposite of that which he has spent his entire life decrying -- or profiting from.

Most of the mass killings by guns in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so. The government cheerfully calls these venues “gun-free zones.” They should be called killing zones.


The term “pre-political” derives from the language of the Second Amendment, which protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” The constitutional reference of “the” right to keep and bear arms makes clear that the Framers recognized that the right pre-existed the government because it stems from our humanity. That’s why pre-political rights are known as fundamental or natural rights.

Because the right to use modern weaponry for the defense of life, liberty and property are natural, we should not need a government permission slip before exercising it, any more than we need one to exercise other natural rights, such as speech, press, assembly, travel and privacy.

Indeed, that's what shall not be infringed means.  It's obvious.  It's plain language.  And it's unambiguous.

Hillary Clinton called the rifle the Orlando killer carried a “weapon of war.” It is not. It is the same rifle that her Secret Service detail carries. Many of her acolytes have called it an assault rifle. It is not. It fires one round for each trigger pull. True assault rifles — not those that the politicians have renamed assault rifles because they have a collapsible stock and a bayonet holder (I know this sounds ridiculous, but it's true) — fire numerous rounds per trigger pull. They have been outlawed on U.S. soil since 1934.

That's a lie.

Machine guns have not been outlawed.  You can own one.  As a civilian.  I have been at a range where many of them are present and legally owned.  You can even rent one from said range and go fire it.  If you wish you can buy it, although again we start talking about permission slips, in the form of what is called a "Form 4."

Of course what Napolitano doesn't want to talk about is his own lie.  He's not "inconsistent", he's lying and he knows it.

He knows good and damn well, because he says so directly, that the right to defend one's life against any who would unlawfully take it predates government.  The Government has no right to prevent you from such defense because it's a natural right; government cannot refuse to permit that which it didn't have control over in the first place.

I cannot give you my next door neighbor's house because I don't have lawful possession of it.  Since I don't own it I can't give it to you.  I also can't take it from my neighbor; again, it's not mine to take.

Tyrants come in all shapes, sizes, colors and numbers.  The everyday tyrant is the robber, mugger or rapist -- and occasionally, very occasionally by the statistics, a mass-shooter.  Against any of them any firearm is better than none, and since magazines have a finite capacity as soon as he or she has to reload you can shoot back.

You might win that battle and you might not, but at least you have a fighting chance.

On the other hand if the tyrants that are after you are not singular then you may have need of a weapon that can fire rapidly -- more rapidly than a semi-automatic.  There's nothing in our Constitution that says your right to defend against a tyrant that would take your life only includes common criminals that come one at a time.

Indeed we have actual Congressional Representatives stating in public that should they not get what they want "we will take to the streets."

If that occurs the tyrants will not be coming one at a time or in singular number.  Indeed the very threat is to engage in violence en-masse.  My right to life does not suddenly become not a pre-political right when a government tyrant proposes the idea of fighting "in the streets" by a proposed mass number of individuals.

It is for this specific reason that the Second Amendment says shall not be infringed, the NFA is unconstitutional, the GCA is unconstitutional, Brady is unconstitutional and so are the rest of these alleged laws.  If and when the time comes it will only be through many, en-masse, who say "NO!" to such tyranny that this nation shall endure as a Representative Republic.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-01-12 13:05 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 212 references
[Comments enabled]  

Whatever your particular predilection may be, here's something to contemplate and hang on your wall...


Brand-new art by Sarah; just completed.  Ready to hang, no framing required.  Email her at today!

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

This is utterly outrageous.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Friday he is planning changes including a possible pathway to U.S. citizenship to foreigners holding H-1B visas, issued temporarily to highly educated immigrants who work in specialty occupations such as technology or medicine.

There goes what is left of the US middle class and the complete destruction of the value of college education.

College has traditionally been about two things: Teaching you how to think critically and providing very specific, career-oriented training.

The former has quite a bit of value -- provided it actually gets imparted to you.  Colleges have destroyed that over the previous 30 or 40 years; fields like "women's studies" and similar make a flat-out mockery of the precept of critical thinking, as has "affirmative action" which inevitably leads to taking the critical part out of the game because those who are "less advantaged" cannot possibly compete at anything approaching an appropriate level, and thus aren't required to.

But our college systems have ramped in cost to an insane degree as well, destroying the value equation for most students.  When I was of that age you could spin pizzas or flip burgers and not only pay for college pay for all your living expenses too.  It wasn't easy but it was possible.  Today it is flat-out not possible to work a part-time job and go to school.

Therefore the only options for most young people are either to have their parents cover it or to go into massive amounts of debt.  Very few parents have a hundred large or more laying around and further, the marginal value of that "education" is questionable at best unless you are interested in one of a few fields, so they'd be nuts to pay for it.  To say "yes" would be to coddle narcissism to an extraordinary degree, much like the so-called "parent" who buys his or her teen driver a brand-new $50,000 BMW and then is shocked when they wreck it.

The problem with H1b visas is that virtually all of those who come into the country using them are not burdened with that debt and further, they come from nations where their expectations and cost of living are a tiny fraction of ours.

The computer programmer coming in on an H1b from India, for example, will take a job programming for $30,000 a year.  To him or her that's decent money and they don't mind living six to an apartment.  As a US graduate today with $50,000 in debt you cannot survive on that salary but he can because he got his education with no debt and in many cases via a subsidized system abroad!

The H1b system is supposed to prevent this by insisting that said people are paid the US "prevailing wage or better."  The premise is that no company would intentionally overpay for workers, so they'll only use H1b employees if they can't find very high skilled US citizens who thus get high wages.  Therefore, the story goes, it doesn't harm US workers at all but does help US employers find the people they need.

That claim is a lie.

The requirements are never enforced.  Worse, many of those jobs are in very high cost areas yet the "prevailing wage" doesn't adjust for that, and as a result what appears to be a decent salary isn't.  Tell me how you make it on $60,000 a year in San Jose, CA?  You couldn't do that in the early 1990s and today you'd literally be living under a freeway overpass.

The H1b program has been riven through with fraud for the last 20+ years.  It has laid waste all but the very best in the US STEM fields in terms of actual salaries and advancement.  US "industry" has strongly resisted any reform, such as requiring they pay double the standard prevailing wage.

Such a requirement sounds crazy but it isn't -- if your intent is to use these people only in places where you need extraordinary capability.  In other words if the "average" programmer makes $50,000 a year to require that an H1b holder in that field be paid at least $100,000 would restrict their use to those who are truly extraordinary -- and unavailable in the United States.  Such a change would instantly stop nearly all of the abuse.

Should there be a path to citizenship for such people?  Maybe.  But only after we resolve all of the poaching and salary-deprecating "features" of the current system and see who still is here on one of these visas when they truly are extraordinary, and not simply being used as a means for US firms to drive down wages and trash the US middle class.

Until then the President go **** himself with this proposal, sans lube.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-01-11 13:00 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 197 references

When you think about days like this..... and realize that they're coming to an end....

[[Gallery image missing or removed]]

Email now to hang this on your wall!  Brand new, just completed -- and ready for you!

View this entry with comments (opens new window)