There Are No Coincidences
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
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.

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 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.

2019-08-13 09:05 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 189 references Ignore this thread
There Are No Coincidences
[Comments enabled]

Humans are very good at evaluating certain things.

Put an image of two colors in front of 100 people and 99% of them will be able to tell you which is the darker shade of the two.  Essentially all humans, even the blind, can differentiate between a dog and a cat.  If something is very probable (e.g. "will it rain today") most humans can get pretty close to right, even with ridiculously-deficient information (e.g. no access to satellite, radar or surface weather maps.)

But humans are very, very poor at evaluating certain other things.  We're very bad, for example, at evaluating the risk of a nuclear accident resulting in our death by radiation poisoning.  Witness the screamfests after Fukushima all the way over here in America, yet the amount of contamination that reached our shores was, while measurable, a tiny fraction of natural background radiation.  Here in NW Florida, where I happen to have a recording geiger counter that tracks background levels and can read all three forms of radiation including alpha (many less-expensive units cannot read alpha particles) the change in background radiation level was a literal zero.

Humans, it turns out, are terrible at evaluating the true risk of highly improbable but catastrophic events.  We tend to evaluate them strictly on the level of catastrophe that could result and ignore the probability.  That is, a serious car accident will kill you and so will a serious nuclear contamination event (whether from a bomb or an accident of some sort.)  Since the nuclear accident, if it's severe enough, will kill more people we evaluate that as the more-serious danger by far, when in fact it's the other way around: Over 37,000 people are killed a year in the United States in motor vehicle wrecks of all sorts where the number killed by a nuclear release last year was a literal zero.

Indeed the number of acute radiation deaths in Japan from Fukushima to date has been zero.  However, about 600 people were killed during the evacuations from other causes -- in other words, the scaring of people managed to result in 600 fatalities.  Oh, and roughly 20,000 people were killed instantly by the tsunami itself, which of course has nothing to do with nuclear power.

But it gets worse.  In the wake of Fukushima Japan has shut down nearly all of its nuclear plant capacity.  Coal replaced a large amount of that.  Coal mining is quite dangerous and often kills the miners, but what's even worse is that thermal coal, that is, burning it for power, kills tens of thousands of people a year.  The irony is that nearly all of them die not from the particulate matter from burning coal itself but rather from a trace element, Thorium, that is found in coal naturally and is an alpha emitter.  While alpha emitters are safe to handle as unbroken skin stops alpha particles when inhaled it causes lung cancer.

So the Japanese shut down their nuclear plants which had killed zero people due to radiation and substituted coal-fired power which in turn kills people through radiation.  It just kills them one at a time on a continual basis over the space of a few decades instead of the possible, but highly improbable, risk of killing fewer people all at once.

There are a decent number of sociopaths and worse -- tyrants -- who know all of this.  They study human behavior.  They are well-aware that scaring people right into a trap that enslaves or even kills them is not very hard.  What's worse is that a lot of those scares can be structured to be very profitable and sold to the public as "good."  So-called "climate change" is one of these.  Not only is it extraordinarily unlikely that man is the cause of the changes in climate (natural cycles are in fact responsible) but even if human activity is responsible for it short of a genocidal war at a scale never contemplated in the history of the planet there's nothing we can do to stop it.  There is thus only one rational action to take, and that is to adapt to what may happen.  If sea levels do indeed rise by a few feet over the next 500 years you can quite-easily walk faster than the water rises, even if you're the sort of sedentary jackwad that weighs 600lbs and requires assistance to go take a dump.  In the decades or centuries over which this change will take place we can move and reconfigure agriculture to take advantage of the higher CO2 levels -- which increase plant growth rates -- rather than whine about it.  We can take those decades to build more electrical infrastructure with which we can power A/C units, so when you want to cool off you can come inside and do so.  And we'll gain a tremendous advantage in the wintertime as, not being as cold, the expenditure of fuel to heat homes and businesses will decline.  However, if the rich and powerful scare people they can make trillions of dollars between them by screwing you in myriad ways from new taxes to intentional destruction of your lifestyle, all of which you will comply with.

 The same sort of thing applies to "mass shootings."  The screaming is incessant about these while a literal Shootapalooza continues in Chicago.  Over the weekend to 10:00pm Sunday the 11th of August there were 42 people shot.  On the 4th of August alone there were more than 30 people shot.  The political screaming about this amounts to zero because there are no scary black rifles involved and you can't blame "white nationalism" as nearly all of the shooters (and their victims) are black or Hispanic.  Encouraging everyone to go armed all the time in Chicago would stop a huge percentage of these shootings (not even a thug likes the idea of being shot at) but if the shootings stopped the prison and police industries would be able to rob less money from the residents -- and taxes would go down.  That just won't do, so the shootings must continue.  Don't worry about that, you're told, it's just the black and brown people that get killed.  Right?

Having now thoroughly buried the lede let's get to the point: Our government, at the behest of corporations and powerful individuals, has been intentionally suppressing wages across the board and destroying your prosperity and wealth for the explicit purpose of allowing the rich and powerful to steal it from you using government force.

The obvious, blatant example is our wide-open border in which we claim to have (what's the point of having a Passport if there is no real border?) but never enforce.  We currently have some 20 million "undocumented" (illegal) invaders in our nation.  Every one of them consumes resource that does not belong to them.  They are here only because they think the opportunity here is better than there.  But how's that possible?  You can't work here legally unless you came here legally.  You can't have a bank account without a social security number.  You can't buy land without being here legally either, nor get a mortgage since both of those require bank involvement and that in turn requires proof of identity and a valid social security number.

How is this "superior" to where you came from?  It's not, unless the government refuses, on purpose, to enforce the law and the corporations and individuals that hire said persons intentionally break said laws.  Both take place for economic reasons.  But who does this hurt?  Those on the left side of the bell curve who are Americans and have their job prospects either diminished or destroyed.  These are the people who, due to lack of ability, education or both will never be rocket scientists -- but they can nail on roofs and pick strawberries.  The problem is that the law says that to do either you must be paid a certain wage, have certain benefits (including health insurance, incidentally, if the place employs a certain number of people) and have the right to a workplace free from unreasonable hazards (like falling off said roofs due to lack of proper harnesses and such.)  You must also be paid overtime for more than 40 hours of work in a week and have at least one 24 hour period of time off per week.  Of course an illegal invader brings none of those costs and as a result they are cheaper to employ, which is why they're employed.  In the meantime all of those citizens on the left side of the bell curve get screwed blind.

Over the last nearly 30 years, however, even that wasn't enough.  Our own National Science Foundation produced a rigged "study" that put forward the claim that we did not have "enough" high-tech workers.  These are people of high skill and education -- that is, they're all from the right side of the bell curve.  Corporations, of course, do not want to pay market prices -- they want to pay less.  The market is very good at allocating this sort of thing; if there are not enough computer programmers that will take a job at $50,000 a year the offered salary will rise until there are sufficient numbers of said people.  It may take a couple of years for the market to adjust to this but it will; there are more than enough smart citizens in the United States who either are in or can return to school and obtain the training necessary for that position.  Wages will rise, in other words, until the demand is met.

The same is true for physicians and other professions.

However, this is not what businesses want.  Not coincidentally it is also not what the government wants, because rapidly rising wages lead to "wage-push" inflation that cannot be hidden through lying in the consumer price index reports which means higher interest rates and that chokes off deficit spending immediately.

So the government actively conspired with business to suppress wages in high-skill jobs through creating and now expanding the H1b visa programs.  This effectively created indentured servants because an H1b visa is not transferable; that is, if you are here on one and working you can't take a job somewhere else for a higher salary as your visa is a pumpkin if you leave your present job and you're thus forced to leave America.

At the same time this has both utterly screwed Americans who have higher skills and abilities by suppressing the wages they would otherwise earn and at the same time enabled Washington's deficit spending by inhibiting the very-visible wage pressure that would have otherwise forced up interest rates.

Do you think this is all coincidence?

Of course it isn't.  I've always assumed it wasn't but, until that National Science Foundation "study" was unearthed couldn't prove it.  But now the proof is on the table; this was a deliberate act of wage suppression intended to hose high skilled and highly-able Americans taken in concert by both government and industry.

This isn't a "only hits the downtrodden, lazy people of color" problem that some would claim is that bastion of "white privilege."  It is in fact intentional and aimed at all ordinary citizens across the board, from the most-able to the least, whether white, Hispanic, black or Martian.  It was done intentionally, with malice aforethought and funded with our tax dollars.

The government, in short, declared war on its citizens, intending to impoverish nearly all for the benefit of a tiny few at the top with political connections and yet, thus far, we the people have been too stupid, to drunk or had our heads buried too far into a smartphone to realize this, rise up and throw their asses out and lock the **********s up, one way or another.

Can you guess why both sides of the aisle will "compromise" on more "gun control", having highlighted only certain shootings that fit the sort of weapons you might want to stop such abuses?  The gang-bangers don't give a damn about the law but it's sure convenient for those in power to limit firearms for those who aren't gang-bangers as they're screwing you in the ass, isn't it?  Let's be real here -- if you're a rapist, financial or otherwise, would you prefer an armed or unarmed victim?

After all you might get tired of being financially raped on a daily basis, decide you're not going to put up with that anymore and that maybe -- just maybe -- you'd like to be able to underline your demand that it stop.

Now let me guess -- having read this you'll go grab a beer, screw your girl or boyfriend, and then go right back to sleep.

You may not care about politics but that won't stop the politicians and business people from screwing you blind.

View with responses (opens new window)