The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Delusion Will Not Get You Hired

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.

No, really?

Public Citizen’s Health Research Group today released an updated report cataloging all major financial settlements that the pharmaceutical industry has been forced to sign with federal and state governments from 1991 through 2017 for illegal activities.

The report shows a dramatic decrease since 2013 in both the total amount paid and the average penalty. Additionally, it found that state governments have virtually stopped prosecuting pharmaceutical manufacturers on their own initiative and with their own resources.

The companies paid fines for law-breaking such as marketing drugs for unproven uses and paying kickbacks to doctors.

Not only are fines just a cost of doing business but the amounts and number of such prosecutions are decreasing dramatically, while the behavior has not gone down -- it's gone up!  Indeed, the criminal financial penalties have dropped by 90%.

Any why not keep doing it?

We all know robbing banks is illegal.  Let's assume that instead of throwing bank robbers in prison we instead made them pay back just 5% of what they stole.

You wouldn't be able to actually get to a teller in the bank unless you were willing to wait for the five bank robbers in line in front of you to finish their "jobs"!

This is so blatantly obvious it's disgusting, yet nobody -- and I do mean nobody -- cares.

The problem is that eventually the people will care, and some subset of them, even if a very small subset, will start taking their own idea of "justice" to said individuals and those who protected them.  There is little or nothing the government can do if and when a group of citizens, or even just a few individual citizens, decide to spend their remaining life all at once obtaining redress for what the government refuses to prosecute, despite it being illegal conduct.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-03-21 12:00 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 100 references

.... you may go, but it's much more-pleasant to look at them instead!


Email for specifics; like all her work this is an original.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-03-21 10:14 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 171 references
[Comments enabled]  

So apparently they're "reasonably sure" there was one mad bomber in Austin, and he's dead since he blew himself up after being chased by the cops.

Note carefully folks:

Law enforcement identified Conditt as a suspect after using surveillance footage from a FedEx store in south Austin. They then tracked down the suspect's online browsing history, which showed searches on various shipping facilities, and eventually located his vehicle, the BBC reported.

How did they get his browsing history?

They had to be able to link a specific device to him via nothing more than a timestamp on a surveillance tape.  Apparently the surveillance tape didn't get his vehicle tag and I assume he didn't pay with a credit card at the shipping location.

Now granted -- this was one jackass, there has been millions spent to find him, he paralyzed a big part of a major city with relatively low cost, skill and effort, and the cops absolutely had probable cause to ID anyone they could associate with it and get whatever data from that they were able with ordinary, legal process.

Just don't think for a second that it's only the cops, with warrants, that have that data.  In order to provide something under a subpoena you have to possess it first and the non-legal, non-legitimate, privacy-invading ways that data can and is used are what I was talking about yesterday -- and have been since long before this page began publication.

PS: Murder is illegal and so are bombs.  You can see how far that went to stop this jackjob from obtaining them and using them to kill and injure people.  This should inform your thought process on other things you wish to make illegal and can be used for evil purpose; it's rather obvious that such laws don't actually do anything when it comes to criminals, isn't it?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-03-21 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 155 references
[Comments enabled]  

Who was willing to go on a general strike when the various states were "convinced" (by threats to pull federal funding) to raise the drinking age to 21?  Nobody.  Indeed most people cheered that change -- and still do.

There are many claims that this legal change led to a "huge" reduction in alcohol-related crash deaths.  Not so fast.  Long after the law was passed all the way to 2015 the rate continued to fall yet the law hasn't changed.  Why?  Because car crashes have become more-survivable generally, and that trend started in the 1980s as material and design science made vehicles safer for the occupants when there is a wreck.  Never mind that "alcohol-involved" fatal accidents are intentionally not segregated out into whether booze was actually part of the cause; if you're drunk but a passenger in the car, and there's a wreck and someone dies, that's an alcohol-involved fatal accident!

So how much of the reduction really came from the change in the law to 21 for alcohol sales and consumption?  We don't know, although the NIH and others of course trumpeted the legal change as the reason for the reduced death rate.

But this is trivially disproved as the primary cause for two reasons -- first, the drop was not a step function; that is, it formed a trend over the space of decades, which has closely-coincided with improvements in vehicle design rather than happening "all at once" as the law was changed and second, Canada, just to our north with very similar driving conditions and vehicles, and in which it was and remains legal to drink at 19, saw the same sort of drop in their death rate for alcohol-involved crashes among those under 21 as well.

There goes the claim that it was (mostly) about the change in the law that was responsible!  There's simply no evidence for that proposition but it makes for a nice bedtime yarn for MADD to spin and the NIH, government-funded of course, to use to claim "success."

Now here's the problem: By acceding to this constraint on booze you set up the means by which the government will now try to take guns from people between 18 and 21 -- and in fact they have already begun right here in Florida with the unconstitutional and unwise, reactionary piece of crap Governor Scott just signed.

Let me point out that for a woman who's 18, 19 or 20 she's not immune from being raped until she's 21 and yet said young woman is legally an adult -- and can live on her own.  What do you tell her?  "Tough crap, deal with it when some brute wants to assault you?"

That's exactly what the State of Florida just said to every 18, 19 and 20 year old woman!

May I point out that the violent rape (not date*****) rate is some five and a half times the murder rate?  And yet when it comes to deterring******and other violent assaults there is only one device known to man that makes the 120lb young woman the exact equal of a 300lb 6'2" brute.

It's called a gun and the 19 year old woman is just as entitled to protect herself as is the 21 year old woman.

The state of Florida has declared war on young women, in short, and so has Trump -- while he has "walked back" an immediate imposition of 21 for guns nationally he has also stated, at the same time, he wants to see it happen.

Make damn sure the Governor and Legislature of Florida, along with Florida generally and Trump's White House, pay with their political and economic lives for this outrage.  They and any other politician who believe this is a good idea ought to have to stand trial for every rape of a woman between 18 and 21 from this day forward since they either have denied or seek to deny her ability to arm and defend herself.

I hereby dub both Governor Scott and the Florida Legislator cheerleaders for******-- because by intentionally disarming young women they are.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-03-20 13:00 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 114 references

These days it sure looks like it.  For Facesucker, that is smiley


Email for pricing and specifics; like all of her work this is an original, one-of-a-kind.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)