The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
2016-04-14 13:59 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 354 references

Nothing like a little palm-greasing that fails to materialize for folks who were apparently being paid off to show up...

Footwear giant New Balance reportedly was promised a shot at landing a huge military contract in exchange for dropping its public opposition to an Obama-touted trade deal -- but now the Boston-based company is lashing out, claiming the Pentagon has reneged on the deal.

“We swallowed the poison pill that is TPP so we could have a chance to bid on these contracts,” Matt LeBretton, a New Balance VP, told the Boston Globe. 

Wait a minute.... what?

Is that legal?  Bribery from the executive branch?

I thought bribery was illegal....... I guess in certain cases, if your name is Obama, it's not eh?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Yes folks, Cruz is an outright religious nutcase.  He is in fact no different than a radical Islamist in this regard, in that he believes and will in fact go to court to force you to behave in the privacy of your own home as he believes you should.

He will also use the law to enforce that if you refuse.

This isn't speculation, it's fact based on his previous acts, not just statements.

Cruz, along with now Gov. Greg Abbott, who was then the state's attorney general, attempted to uphold a Texas law that prohibited the sale of sex toys in the state. 

As part of the legal argument, Cruz's office wrote that, 'There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship.' 

A number of businesses began challenging the law after a Texas mother was arrested by two undercover cops for throwing a party and selling vibrators and other wares through Passion Parties, which is, like Corn explained, 'akin to a Tupperware party for sex toys.'

Got it folks?

This wasn't even the conduct of a business in a public place, it was a Tupperware-style party when the "business" was transacted inside a private residence.

Yet Cruz argued that you had no right to engage in that commerce in a private residence because you have no due-process right to stimulate your own genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation.

He lost, by the way, as he should.

But that he made that argument is an outrage and is exactly identical to attempting to enforce Sharia Law in the United States but, in this form, as would be found in radical Christian theology.

This is exactly the sort of thing -- establishment -- that the founders explicitly prohibited in the Constitution.

Cruz doesn't give a flying **** about the Constitution; he's a bald liar.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Just heard on CNBS: "Then you go into the Pre-check line where the TSA screws you."


Accuracy in media.  Uncommon, but occasionally present.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

The premise was tantalizing -- one little drop of blood being able to run the same sort of metabolic panel of tests that usually takes one or two vials drawn.  The difference in both hassle and cost promised was tremendous, with no small part of it being involved in sample collection that would no longer require a skilled medical professional to puncture a vein and obtain the required blood draw.

But now, it is reported by the Wall Street Journal, regulators want to ban both the founder of the company, Elizabeth Holmes, and the #2 exec there for two years from any blood-testing business along with revoking the firm's federal testing licenses.

It is effectively a death penalty proposal for the company.

Some of the concerns revolve around quality control.  Those are bad.

What's worse is the open question: Did the alleged technology work and produce accurate and repeatable results or was it all an elaborate load of crap?

Innovation is a great thing but only if it works as claimed and there's plenty of reason to be concerned here.  If these matters are about sloppy practices in a largely-funded but loosely-run firm, that's one thing.

But if they're really about repeatabilty and accuracy of the allegedly-new technology that's something else entirely, because the company should have validated that before attempting to apply for a license and engage in commercially exploiting their invention.

If the issue lies in the latter realm to any degree this is not about sloppiness any more.

It then becomes about fraud and very material harm done to real people through knowingly inaccurate results.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Here it is again....

THE RESTAURANT’S CHALKBOARD makes claims as you enter from the valet parking lot. At the hostess stand, a cheery board reads, “Welcome to local, farm-fresh Boca.”

Brown butcher paper tops tables and lettuces grow along a wooden wall. In a small market case, I see canned goods from here and produce from somewhere. Check the small print: blackberries from Mexico and blueberries from California.

Local, farm-fresh eh?


Read the article.  This is endemic, and it's all part of the business of business these days.  Fraud.

See, there's next to zero enforcement, perhaps a few small fines here and there.  But nothing more.  Serving someone alleged veal when it's actually pork doesn't get you thrown in prison.  Maybe it gets you hit with a few hundred dollar fine -- if you get caught.

With fish this has been a problem forever, especially with premium species.  I've sent more than one plate of "grouper" back over the years since coming to Florida.  See, I catch grouper when I fish on my own and I know what it tastes like.  If you serve me tilapia I might not be able to identify it as tilapia, but I sure as hell will know it's not grouper, assuming it's not drowned in some sauce.

Have I been "quietly" had from time to time?  Probably.  But I tend to eschew, for the most part, the so-called "kitchy" so-called "farm-to-table" places.  There's one mentioned in the referenced article I actually have eaten at more than once, and it was good.  But was it really "farm to table"?  I don't know and neither does anyone else, most of the time.

This much I can tell you for certain though -- I paid more than I would have for an equivalent plate of food from somewhere else that didn't make those claims.  And I went for the ambiance and the company of the person I was with as much as the food..... however, lies are lies.

Why does anyone put up with this?  Why do you put up with it, to not put too fine a point on it?

After all, without you whipping out your wallet and fawning over these kitchy places they wouldn't be around making these claims.  But they are, and they do.

Maybe you should think twice before you spend money in one of these places again, given the odds you're not getting what you were sold, and nobody, and I do mean nobody, goes to jail for ripping you off like this.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Our Impending Failure As A Nation

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.


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.