The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

So we got the gay marriage opinion and there was much rejoicing.

How foolish you are...

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.

Half of this is right.  The second half is an outrage, but no surprise, and it will have ramifications those on both sides of this argument are not going to like.

First, let me point out to those on the religious right of the aisle: You deserved this decision.  More than 15 years ago I wrote a number of letters to the Catholic Archdiocese urging them to ignore state marriage licenses -- in fact, to deliberately eschew them and instead celebrate only Catholic marriages.  That is, no license, period.  If you wanted to have a civil document of some sort, then go see the judge.  For a religious marriage, go see a Priest.  Never the twain shall meet, for the simple reason that Catholic (and most other Christian sectarian) teaching on marriage was irreconcilable with civil marriage and its provisions and thus by affixing a signature and certification to such a document the Church was profaning itself.

Well, if you fornicate on the Altar you cannot complain when the lightning bolt shows up out of the blue, and it did.  Congratulations to all of those Christian faiths that earned what was delivered to you today.

Let us look at the facts, most-specifically the fact that marriage was not subject to "license" until it became fashionable to constrain who could marry.  Historically marriages were "recorded" in the family Bible -- and nowhere else.  Marriage laws in the United States arose from the desire to exclude certain marriage choices, most-particularly those who would choose partners that were of the "wrong" color or heritage.  Forcing the celebrants to appear before a Justice of the Peace or Clerk of the Court was a suitable means of enforcing racism. 

But this is not the evil found in the decision today.  No, that evil is found in the destruction of federalism, the foundation of this nation.  This decision puts a nearly-final nail in that coffin, for it embraces not federalism and its principles but rather unification -- that is, the principle that there is no union of 50 states but rather one federal government and thus one state, with the arbitrary boundaries between states being mere lines on a map.

The Court could have reached a decision that a marriage contracted in one state had to be respected in the others.  That's Federalism and, incidentally, disrespect of that principle, which was foundational to this Republic and remains so, is the primary reason the Civil War was undertaken.

In other words that I get married to another man in California and then travel to Florida (where such is not legal) doesn't mean that Florida has to marry two men.  It does, however, mean that Florida has to recognize that under California law we're married.  It was the willful refusal to honor this in the 1860 timeframe that led states to break away and declare that they were no longer part of the United States and this sort of decision risks that exact same thing happening again.

No, if it does it won't be because of two gay people demanding a marriage "license."  Rather it will be because some state, say, New York, will demand that Florida impose New York's tax and regulatory schemes on its population!

Far-fetched?  Not at all - this is already being proposed under so-called "Internet sales tax" changes, where nexus is discarded as meaningful and instead a national tax scheme is being cooked up.

So to the religious right who slept with the devil and then got it up the pooper as a consequence we can add all those people dancing in the streets in glee -- your turn to get in line and find that it comes long, dry and hard is on tap, and I assure you that the consequence will not be to your liking.

Both groups have made a grave mistake, and unfortunately the outcome may be similar to that in 1861.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

The Chinese market is in an all-on crash.

Last night the Shanghai index was down 8%, and while there have been some wild recovery rallies during the last couple of weeks as well the cumulative loss is close to 20% at this point, the formal "declaration" of a bear market.

That market had been in a parabolic blow-off since roughly December, a classic (to a chartist) three-stage parabolic move with two retracements.  The most-recent move down, however, threatens to violate the uptrend support originated back in November and has already erased the gains since May.

Yes, a 2-month round-trip of about 20%.

"Liquidity" is usually given as the reason for the "reasonableness" of stock valuations these days.  I have only one question: What happens when said "liquidity" is really nothing more than a loan (which it always is) and the borrowed funds are lost instead or producing "gains"?

smiley

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2015-06-26 08:21 by Karl Denninger
in Flash , 235 references
 

"I will not be blackmailed."

"I will not be blackmailed!"

When that's what the two sides of a negotiation both say you've got a problem.

And that's what they're both saying.

Here's the problem -- Merkel has the weak hand; by allowing both her banks and her central bank (and yes, the ECB is Germany's central bank since they're the "paymaster") to take on roughly 150 billion Euros of Greek debt through the game-playing perpetrated via the LTRO and similar nonsense Herr Merkel now has the gun in her own mouth and her own hand on the trigger.

This weekend ought to be quite amusing.....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Down is up.  Left is right. Negative is positive. 

And Hell froze over.

The dead are buried, the murderer apprehended, and the shock has started to wear off. Now comes the public reaction to the massacre in Charleston. 

Soon after the shootings at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, the first black president of the United States offered some thoughts on Dylan Roof’s racist attack. First and foremost, President Obama said, recent events were about how “innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hand on a gun.” The killings were also about a “dark chapter in our history,” namely racial slavery and Jim Crow. Obama only suggested practical action regarding the first issue, namely gun control.

He did not consider that such measures will make the persistence of the second problem even worse.

Oh yes he did.

Obama not only knew this he doesn't care.

Salon continues...

It is perhaps counterintuitive to say so but gun control responses to mass killings – whether racially motivated or otherwise – are a deep mistake. The standard form of gun control means writing more criminal laws, creating new crimes, and therefore creating more criminals or more reasons for police to suspect people of crimes. More than that, it means creating yet more pretexts for a militarized police, full of racial and class prejudice, to overpolice.

It is not a mistake, it was and is intentional going all the way back to the National Firearms Act!

Let's cut the crap shall we?  This was always about keeping "the wrong people" from having firearms.  The politicians admit this yet they always couch this as keeping criminals from obtaining guns.

That's impossible just as it is impossible for a law to keep a criminal from stealing your car.  He steals your car irrespective of the law as the definition of a criminal is a person who ignores laws.

But such a "law" by design and intent opens the door of inquiry by police into people who are not at a given time committing a criminal act.  The felon who has served his sentence yet possesses a firearm for personal protection is not at that time harming someone else nor does he ever intend to do so again yet we make his mere desire to protect his own life a criminal act.  We also give the police a pretext to stop and search persons any time they wish to "inquire" whether such a crime has been committed.

"Stop and frisk", as the article points out, was not justified on the premise of drugs but rather guns!  

Yet the possession of a firearm doesn't denote intent or action to harm others, just as possession of drugs does not denote any such thing.  The siren song sung by various policing agencies that such items harm "someone" is an argument that one does not have the right to take actions that might harm themselves.  We've seen where this winds up with New York City attempting to ban sugared sodas under the same rubric; you might harm yourself by consuming one.

The fact of the matter is that any sort of "mere possession" standard for criminal sanction, irrespective of the item in question, always must devolve into selective enforcement if it is possible to attempt to conceal such an object because the process of finding the items inherently involves invasive searches and there is no objective means available to know who does and doesn't have said object upon their person or property.

The only place Salon errs is in believing that this is somehow a novel issue. It is not. "Gun control", just as with marriage laws, was originally designed as a tool of racism.  Nobody wishes to admit to this but it's not only able to be deduced with a minimum amount of study it was actually written into some of the original laws where black people were prohibited arms that whites could openly carry.

Our standard for just laws ought to be that until and unless one harms someone else their conduct is their own business and nobody else's.  This would require a re-think, however, of many subsidies we currently provide for bad behavior, whether it be dropping out of school (welfare), popping out children out of wedlock (AFDC/WIC/welfare/Section 8/etc), destroying one's own health through abuse of alcohol and/or drugs (Medicaid, SSDI, etc) and more.  These laws are not intended to help people at all; they are intended to reward bad behavior and in fact encourage people to destroy themselves through the agency of the state.  But that's not enough; free will fails to serve up enough of the minority population even when provided incentives and so to add to the injustice laws are passed that can only be enforced through unconstitutional and outrageous intrusions into one's affairs, whether it be stop-n-frisk or the practice of stopping someone for the infraction of driving while black.

I have no quarrel with an enhanced sanction if someone uses a weapon in the commission of another offense; indeed, such enhancements already exist in places that make sense.  There is a distinction between armed robbery and ordinary robbery, for example, with one carrying a heavier sentence than the other.  This distinction comes from conduct rather than possession and thus is utterly neutral in both implication and application.

Cut the crap America; if we're going have a discussion about race this has to be front and center.  In point of fact it is precisely the person living in a poor, crime-ridden area (where rents and ownership are cheapest) who needs the protection of the Second Amendment, as-written, the most.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Really?

REALLY?

Everywhere and anywhere now is banning the Confederate Battle Flag because some jackass shot up a church and it was pretty-clearly a racist attack?

Did we ban the Queeran -- or prayer mats -- after Hasan shot up a military facility?

No?

Well?

We damn well ought to put historical fact on the Confederacy in the first place; the sole cause was not slavery, although that certainly was a part of it.

Let's remember that while the Cotton Gin (invented in 1793) greatly increased the production of finished product the same stride forward in technology that produced it also led to the introduction of mechanization of farm labor and that slavery was economically defunct at the time of Lincoln's election.  The Northern states knew it too; the "institution" of slavery was rapidly becoming uneconomic and was destined to die all on its own for economic reasons within a decade.  There was no need to go to war over the issue as the machines were vastly more efficient in terms of per-unit labor cost (by a factor of 10 or more!) than human slaves.

Then there were economic factors and the bleeding of the southern states by northern business interests.  Oh, where have we heard this of late?  Might it be in those "mighty" NY banks in 2008?  Oh yes, I think it was.  Well, it happened then too -- this is from Georgia's actual declaration of secession:

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.

Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

That was a hell of a lot of money at the time, by the way.

Never mind the blatant refusal to deliver up fugitives.  Today there is a substantial disconnect on the legality of marijuana, for example.  In Colorado it is legal to possess and smoke it, along with delivering it provided you're licensed.  What do you think would be the response if someone from a neighboring state was dealing drugs, fled to Colorado and the State of Colorado refused to return them to the state where the law was allegedly violated to stand trial and threatened to kill anyone who attempted to capture and return them to the other state?  What if people in Colorado were inciting the drug dealing in neighboring states by making clear, public statements that they would not extradite any dealer that got to their state before being arrested?  That was routine during the years before the Civil War, never mind those those seeking the return of fugitives were frequently murdered (and those committing the murders were not only not prosecuted they were celebrated!)

So over all this we had a war.  A bloody, nasty war.  A war in which, I remind you, the Northern troops committed acts that by any reasonable standard were blatant, outrageous war crimes, including literally incinerating everything in their path -- human, animal and property.

This is not speculation and I'm not referring to Sherman either; I'm actually referring to Grant's order to General Sheridan to literally destroy the Shenandoah Valley -- a task he took upon himself and completed.  There were literally hundreds turned out of their homes as they were burned to ash along with their barns, hay and grains in the late summer.  These were not soldiers or combatants; they were civilian families and included among them Mennonites -- a non-violent religious sect that opposed both secession and slavery and had refused to engage in hostilities of any sort.

And none of this -- exactly none -- was ever prosecuted.  In fact today there's damn little recognition of the military tactics used and the destruction inflicted on those who waged no war and in fact wanted nothing to do with it on either side.  I note that virtually all of that harm was inflicted on southern individuals and their property.

Next you can tell me how you square this with what is being alleged is an actual government order to stop selling confederate flags.  I'm not sure I buy the "government order" claim, by the way, but there sure has been a hell of a lock-step move by an awful lot of businesses all at once doing the same thing -- including eBAY, Amazon, Apple and WalMart.

Hmmmm.

Is there a race problem in America?  Oh hell yeah.  But just as we don't ban Queerans because some Islamic nutjob tries to shoot up a cartoon contest, or another Islamic nutjob tries and succeeds in shooting up a military base exactly what sort of horsecrap is it to call not only for banning pieces of cloth with particular markings on them but also to demand the removal of statutes and other historical artifacts of a war that both didn't have to be fought and damn well ought to be remembered not just for its causes but for the atrocities committed during that time?

How far from Nazi Germany (or Saddam's Iraq!) are we when we ban pieces of cloth and tear down statutes?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
If You're Older Than 40 And Reading This...

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
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 reproduced 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 or for commercial use.

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.