The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

It's bad for your karma to wish for a tiny asteroid to hit someone on the head.  On the other hand, perhaps it would be worth it....

The failure in 2008 of American International Group Inc., the world’s biggest insurer, would have caused “mass panic on a global scale,” Timothy Geithner, the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the time, testified at a trial over the government bailout of the company.

Geithner, one of three architects of the U.S. response to the 2008 financial crisis, testified in response to claims by Maurice “Hank” Greenberg’s Starr International Co. that the government illegally took equity in AIG. Geithner was responsible for setting what a Starr lawyer called “an extortion rate” of 14 percent on an $85 billion loan to AIG.

Of course the real issue here is not on trial and never will be, because that would require putting both Paulson and Geithner (along with a whole lot of other people!) in the dock: AIG was a regulated company as were the banks; to the extent that they got in this degree of trouble there ought to be so-called regulators in prison for gross and intentional malfeasance of office.

This is nowhere more true than at IndyMac where it appears that the bank backdated deposits so as to make it appear more-solvent than it really was.  This was apparently countenanced by the same person within the regulatory apparatus that got caught doing the same thing during the S&L crisis!  Not only did that individual (and everyone above and around him who knew about it and did nothing) not go to prison he didn't even lose his job, as is evidenced by being able to do it again!

As for Greenberg's lawsuit I have to chuckle; the entire reason the "rescue" came about in the first place was that AIG wrote somewhere near a half-trillion in derivatives with essentially zero cash behind them.  That is, any deterioration in their position rendered the subsidiary involved instantly insolvent, and the question then became whether the parent company could be compelled to perform in the subsidiary's place.

If not then there was no reason to rescue anyone.  If so then the regulators didn't do their jobs and should be charged with that failure.  There's no way around this; one of those two has to be true.

You won't see that exposed in court or anywhere else -- but it's the real issue, at the core, and it remains today as an issue because until there is accountability there will not be reform.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Heh heh heh....

More than a dozen states plan to cancel health care policies not in compliance with ObamaCare in the coming weeks, affecting thousands of people just before the midterm elections.

"It looks like several hundred thousand people across the country will receive notices in the coming days and weeks," said Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

The policies are being canceled because states that initially granted a reprieve at the request of President Obama are no longer willing to do so.

There's good news and bad news.

The good news is that if you were one of the idiots who bought into the "reporting" that claimed Americans "like" Obamacare, and are pleasantly surprised at the "improvement" or "lack of harm" it has done to them, you're about to get lots of stimulation of your prostate, and that may be a pleasant surprise.

For most, however,including the 50% of the population that doesn't have a prostate, I suspect you'll instead call it rape.

That, of course, is the bad news.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

What is it if you come to this country intentionally knowing that (1) you might be about to come down with a serious disease, and (2) you have no money to pay for your treatment if you do?

Caring for Thomas Eric Duncan, the Dallas Ebola patient, may cost as much as half a million dollars, a bill that his hospital is unlikely to ever collect.

Duncan is in critical condition at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, where he has been isolated since Sept. 28. He’s on a ventilator, has been given an experimental medicine and is receiving kidney dialysis, a hospital spokeswoman said today. His treatment probably includes fluids replacement, blood transfusions and drugs to maintain blood pressure. There’s also the cost of security, disposing of Ebola-contaminated trash and equipment to protect caregivers.

Remember that Duncan, from published reports, lied about his exposure to ebola before coming to the US.  He also came here to the US knowing he had no means to pay any hospital bill he might incur, and he knew that if he got sick he would incur that care and said bill.

So.... is this set of actions, given those circumstances, criminal fraud?

Just askin', not that it matters at this point since he's dead...

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

No, they'd never delay reporting -- and "alter" (read: fraudulently falsify) reports into a Secret Service scandal -- right?

The lead investigator into the Secret Service prostitution scandal told Senate staffers that he was directed to delay the release of the report until after the 2012 election, according to a published report. 

According to The Washington Post, David Nieland also said that he was instructed by his superiors in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general's office to "withhold and alter certain information in the report of investigation because it was potentially embarrassing to the administration."

So DHS isn't about protecting yousee.  It's about protecting the administration -- and not from physical threats either, but rather from embarrassing scandals that might cause them to lose elections!

It has long since ceased to be amusing drawing parallels between Hitler's Homeland nonsense and our own DHS.

But as long as you, the American public, will stick out your hand for your EBT and Section 8, well, it's perfectly ok to use the Department of Homeland Security to effectively rig an election by intentionally distorting the record as to prostitutes ****ing members of the White House advance team.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Oh please...

After a celebrity hacking scandal revealed nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence, the actress is calling the attack “a sex crime.”

“It is a sexual violation. It’s disgusting. The law needs to be changed, and we need to change. That’s why these websites are responsible. Just the fact that somebody can be sexually exploited and violated, and the first thought that crosses somebody’s mind is to make a profit from it,”  Lawrence, 24, said in Vanity Fair’s November issue. “It’s so beyond me. I just can’t imagine being that detached from humanity. I can’t imagine being that thoughtless and careless and so empty inside.”

So how do you define hawking your body for years, Jennifer?  And don't try to tell anyone that you didn't and don't -- it's all you and the rest of these people who were "hacked" have to sell!

You know it, I know it, the magazines and other places where you prance around not only know it they market it with your explicit permission and then when someone gets ahold of it suddenly it's more than simple theft of service (gee, what were you selling again?) and you want to make an argument that your sexuality is "private."


That your clothes were completely off at that particular point in time is the only argument you've got -- and while it's a decent argument, it certainly doesn't get anywhere near the territory of a "sex crime."

That you've pranced around for quite some time selling your sexuality as what has marketable value is fact.

If you were concerned about people seeing you with your clothes off perhaps taking pictures of yourself unclothed wasn't such a good idea?  If the issue is simply who saw them and exactly what clothes were on or off, well, now we're really getting down to brass tacks, aren't we?  

And there's the rub, you see, because in the general sense what all these models are and have been selling -- all of them -- is in fact their sexuality.

It pays well, I might add, and since it's a voluntary transaction who's arguing?  Not I; if you can get people to pay you to strut around and look pretty, clothes or no, more power to you girl.

But -- if your boyfriend is a cad (and posts the pictures, which he legally acquired) or if you are stupid (either in using poor security measures, none, or choosing a bad place to store such things) and they get stolen then at worst there was theft of the images (your, or someone else's if you gave them to him/her, property) and at best there was no offense at all as the person to whom you gave them, absent some sort of obligation otherwise, has them through legitimate means.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
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.