The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

Ready to withdraw your consent yet?

There are times when it becomes absolutely impossible to support the remarkably bad judgment often displayed by federal agencies under the control of the current administration—even for those of us who are typically viewed as backers of many of this administration’s policies.

The latest installment of frightfully unacceptable government behavior involves a law created in 2000—the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000—granting the IRS the power to seize the bank accounts of those suspected to be terrorists, drug dealers or engaged in other criminal activity, even when no charges have been filed and no convictions achieved.

Note the misdirection -- "the current administration."

Who passed that law and when?  Who was President in 2000?  In 2001?  2002?  2003?  And on and on.

This is just a "current administration" problem?  That's a lie.

What's the problem?  The IRS seizing money from people who are never charged with a crime, say much less convicted.  It's been going on for a long time but suddenly, just now, people notice it and articles show up.  I've written on it several times over the years.

Look, I'm all for going after money laundering (although we ought to start with the banks that have been caught moving billions for drug gangs yet are simply fined rather than having people go to prison) and other forms of criminal activity.

But -- this sort of thing is not law enforcement nor prosecution of bad guys.  It's pure theft and extortion.

It doesn't matter who does it, a thing is what it is.

If the government acts in a form and fashion that is felonious, no matter what they call it or how they couch it, why is it that you consent to said government again?

Think long and hard on that folks.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Gee, so you can't afford cash health care eh?

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Wal-Mart Stores Inc. pushed down prices for some generic prescription drugs to just $4 eight years ago, setting a new industry standard. Now it is trying to do the same for seeing a doctor.

$40.  Cash.  On the barrel.  Coupled with the $4 generics care to argue why you need so-called "health insurance" for anything routine any more?

We need to stop making excuses for the health-care scam at all levels -- individually, corporately, and in our government.  Those representatives and senators, whether state or federal, that refuse to take this scam on and dismantle it need to be shown the door -- with prejudice.

Now where are the honest reps and candidates that will take this on?

I've not yet seen one.

That's a problem.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Hmmm...

New orders for manufactured durable goods in September decreased $3.2 billion or 1.3 percent to $241.6 billion, the U.S. Census Bureau announced today. This decrease, down two consecutive months, followed an 18.3 percent August decrease. Excluding transportation, new orders decreased 0.2 percent. Excluding defense, new orders decreased 1.5 percent.

Transportation equipment, also down two consecutive months, led the decrease, $2.8 billion or 3.7 percent to $73.4 billion.

Meh.

And if you've read me for a while you know that one of my key indicators is communications and computer products in this report.  The latter, in particular, has now notched three months of cumulative declines in both shipments and new orders along with being negative on an annualized basis -- this is a hiring recession warning.

Ignore this at your peril.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

You have the power.

You have all the power.

Not just some of it, all of it.

It is able to be exercised whenever you decide to exercise it, doing so is legal, doing so is peaceful, and it is effective.

Those who you can exercise that power against don't like it either, but that's tough ****.

On October 1, the computing giant Intel pulled its ads from Gamasutra, a trade website for game developers, over an essay called "'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over" by a journalist named Leigh Alexander. Intel had been successfully harassed by a small, contemptible crusade called "Gamergate"—a campaign of dedicated anti-feminist internet trolls using an ill-informed mob of alienated and resentful video game-playing teenagers and young men to harass and intimidate female activists, journalists, and critics.

Unable to run Alexander out of game writing, as they had with the writer Jenn Frank, or force her from her home, as they did to the developer Brianna Wu, or threaten her from public engagements, as they did the following week to the critic and activist Anita Sarkeesian, Gamergate went after her publisher. And, in an unbelievable and embarrassing act of ignorance and cowardice, Intel capitulated. The company's laughable "apology," released late on that Friday afternoon, didn't cover up the fact of Gamergate's victory: Intel was not replacing its ads.

Let's remember what happened with AnitaShe appears to have intentionally attempted to raise money under false pretense; that she had received death threats and reported them, but, it appears that not only were there no threats there was also no report.

So what's your peaceful response when a corporation or group of corporations start supporting some jackass who is running around claiming to have had her life threatened falsely in an attempt to push some sort of "social justice" ideological scheme?

You can punish those companies by going after their advertisers and affiliates, refusing to do business with them so long as they support what in your sole judgementthey continue to support and promote a position you personally disagree with.

If you do that in any sort of material group, you will win.

Now apply this same premise to all sorts of other practices you disagree vehemently with.  Bank bailouts, for example.  Cops shooting innocent dogs.  Businesses supporting this or that bogus (globull warming anyone?) cause.  You name it, there's a pressure point and it's found in the checkbook -- your checkbook.

You wield the power.  You decide.  Nobody can force you to buy this brand of beer, toilet paper, peanut butter or ketchup.  

Transparent and documented though it was, the obsessive campaign worked. Mercedes-Benz—listed on the site as a former partner, and therefore a target—briefly paused its ads on a network that serves ads to Gawker. I've been told that we've lost thousands of dollars already, and could potentially lose thousands more, if not millions.

Good.

To tell Mercedes-Benz: I won't buy a Mercedes -- ever -- if you advertise on some site is my God-given right.

You have a checkbook and you have the right to use it or not as your conscience, and only your conscience, directs.

Period.

Misogynistic crap ought to be exposed for what it is and ridiculed to the maximum possible extent.  But those who falsely claim serious injury, in this case who accuse people of committing felonies (death threats are a felony offense folks) for the purpose of advancing a political agenda, irrespective of the medium and format, deserve to be prosecuted and those entities who support them in print or otherwise deserve to be boycotted.

Period.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Over the last year or so I've seen plenty of things that have disturbed me.

Not so much because people do bad things.  That's not new, nor is it news, although there are a lot of media outlets that wouldn't exist but for those bad things.

No, I speak specifically here about behavior toward people that the actors would consider "friends" or "family" (whether by blood or simply due to some voluntary association that gives rise to such a moniker) and yet is atrocious enough that one is forced to wonder if that is what passes for acceptable behavior toward someone who is "family" exactly what would that person do to someone without said status -- say, a fellow employee or even someone random that was passing by on the sidewalk?

And no, these are not isolated or rare incidents either.

I have recently wondered rather often if perhaps I ought to go find a chunk of land on a mountainside somewhere and tell essentially everyone, with only a very few exceptions, to***** off.

WTF folks.

Seriously.

PS: If you believe that, having done such a thing, you can escape being discovered by lying at best you will probably only delay discovery.  The reason for this is that unless your act impacted nobody else (in which case I wouldn't be commenting on it, would I?) the lie will eventually wind up conflicting with some other recollection of events by another person.  As soon as that happens anyone who cares to ask a question or three will figure it out -- at which point there are now two reasons to be unhappy with you instead of one.

PPS: If you were a beneficiary of that sort of behavior by someone -- that is, you got something you find pleasant from it -- you might want to temper your enthusiasm a bit. After all, you see, they've already proved they'll do that sort of thing to someone they consider "friend", "family" or even more -- so what sort of confidence should you have that you're immune from being their target the next time around?

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.

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.