The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets


Rosie O’Donnell’s adopted daughter, Chelsea, has left home to live with her birth mother, a representative for the actress told FOX411 on Wednesday.

O'Donnell's representative said she “made the decision” when she was 18.

That didn't have anything to do with Rosie confiscating her phone and turning it over to the cops, resulting in someone she may have been with on a consensual basis being charged with a couple of felonies, would it?

If that's what happened here, and especially if Chelsea left because she was tired of Rosie's **** (which was probably the case) then **** you with a rusty chainsaw Rosie.

What was the time line here - a couple of days prior to Chelsea's 18th birthday?  Looks like it, given the dateline on this story -- and the previous one.

If I ever find Rosie O'Donnell being eaten by a shark -- I'm cheering the shark on.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2015-08-27 05:00 by Karl Denninger
in Monetary , 313 references

No, really?

As I've discussed at length, there are many catalysts in play in the market’s turn, from fears about China to corporate earnings and commodity prices. But at the core, much of this plunge is about a loss of faith in cheap money stimulus. It's as simple as that.

Loss of faith?

The problem isn't simply that "central banks will rescue us."  It's that the world economic system has become addicted to a 30 year trend of fiscal irresponsibility that long ago crossed the line into abject fraud, and utterly nobody has gone to prison for it.

Specifically, the "I can afford $10,000 in interest, so how much can I borrow?" paradigm has become embedded not only among business but more importantly among governments of all stripes as well.

When the rate of interest is 10% the answer is $100,000, of course.

The problem is not that you borrowed the money, it's that you did so for any purpose other than capital investment that has a return greater than the carrying cost and principal over the life of the loan.

That in turn means you never intended to pay the debt off at all, only to roll it over.  In other words you didn't "borrow" at all; you instead took someone's money and spent it, permanently removing their capital and placing it into the marketplace for the purpose of consumption on the premise that you will forever more be able to continually pay that interest expense.

That's bad enough.  What's worse is that when the prevailing rate of interest is falling over a three-decade period (as has been the case) whenever the rollover time comes you "borrow" even more because you can do so with the same interest payment, spending that money on non-productive things as well.

So the $100,000 loan, as interest rates fall from 10% to 1% becomes a $1 million loan, and the entire million dollars gets spent into the economy as a whole.

That trend has now ended because there is a hard floor at zero.  In the best case rates simply flat-line here at which point you can no longer borrow more money -- and the game collapses as so-called "economic growth" also goes to zero.

In the worst case rates rise and you instantly go bankrupt as you can't afford to rollover.

Incidentally, if I remove this expansion just on a federal level in the last few years in the United States then GDP "growth" is under 1%, and since the population is expanding at about 1% as well this means that per-capita GDP is actually NEGATIVE and has been for the last several years.

How do you sustain so-called "market price increases" (for stocks among other things) when there is no per-capita GDP expansion and hasn't been for the last many years -- in fact, coming up on a solid decade of said non-performance?

Eventually people wake up to the lies as it flows through to the corporate balance sheet, and at that point you're done as debt-funded dividends collapse and non-dividend paying stocks are discovered to in fact be worth zero.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

This is interesting but hardly surprising.

Infidelity website Ashley Madison and its parent company have been sued in federal court in California by a man who claims that the companies failed to adequately protect clients' personal and financial information from theft, saying he suffered emotional distress.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles by a man identified as John Doe, seeks class-action status.

The lawsuit accuses Ashley Madison and parent company Avid Life Media Inc, which is based in Toronto, of negligence and invasion of privacy, as well as causing emotional distress.

Emotional distress?  The usual tort is intentional infliction of emotional distress.  I don't think you can get there, but the negligence claim might well hold up.

At issue is the site's claim that you could pay to be "erased", when in fact it appears they did not erase your data.  It may well be that single representation that nails these guys.

What I've often wondered is why, when it comes to people's marriages and other relationships that are destroyed by conduct enabled by a site such as this the site's owners are not sued for tortious interference.  That, it would seem to me, is a ripe field -- even absent a data breach.

That's because a site that has an open and notorious policy of catering to people who are seeking to cheat (and enabling them to do so for profit) is quite different than someone who signs into a dating site representing that they are single when they are not.

Nonetheless I'm not all that surprised at the lack of data security -- or, it appears, any concern at all for same, even when it comes to billing data.  That's distressingly common among firms -- it's somewhat difficult to do that right, especially when you're dealing with a recurring billing situation (which they probably were.)

I'll be watching this with bemused interest.... and no, my email and other data is not in there.. smiley

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Now that could get serious....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

But not to cut other people off and refuse to wait your turn.

A day after restarting his feud with Fox News, Donald Trump added more fuel to his dispute with Latinos, which is the cornerstone of both his campaign and the GOP's current nightmare. At the start of Trump's press conference in Iowa on Tuesday night, Jorge Ramos, the most well-known Spanish-language news anchor in the U.S., stood and began asking a question as Trump called on another reporter. "Excuse me, sit down, you weren't called. Sit down. Sit down. Sit down," Trump barked. "You haven't been called. Go back to Univision."

As Ramos continued speaking, Trump looked over at a security officer, who then moved across the room. "I am a reporter. Don’t touch me. I have a right to ask the question," Ramos protested, but the officer escorted him out.

Yep, which is exactly what a candidate (or anyone else) should do when a so-called "reporter" thinks they are more important than everyone else in the room.

Note that New York did point out that when it was Ramos' turn to ask a question Trump let him back in the room to do so, and got into a discussion with him -- and most of the other media has intentionally omitted that fact and edited their clip of the encounter to distort the truth.  That, by the way, Ramos was not owed; having "decided" that he was the most-important reporter at the time originally Trump had every right to not only have him removed but not give him time for a question later.

However, Trump did give him time -- when it was his turn -- which again is something no other candidate would have done -- or has done in the past.

I've been in the position as a journalist where I took my turn to ask a question, got a half-assed answer (in my opinion) and then subsequently would have loved to nail the person I was questioning with a follow-up, particularly when they say something completely contradictory or stupid 5 minutes later in response to someone else's query.  But that doesn't give me the right to interrupt someone else and usurp their time; I'm just one of the people there and have no more right to a slot for my question than anyone else.  If I don't get called a second time (and you almost never do as it would be unfair to the other journalists there to give you two questions to their one) that's just too bad; if someone else doesn't pick up and run with the stupidity that still doesn't give me the right to intervene.

At the end of the day this isn't about the validity of Ramos' question - or lack thereof.  It's about the fact that Trump not only refused to put up with Ramos' thuggish behavior and had him removed (the right for him to do) but then he went above and beyond any duty he had and, when his turn came, he let Ramos back in the room to entertain that debate.

There's no other candidate or sitting office-holder who would have taken that second step and Trump deserves recognition for enforcing decorum while at the same time not dodging the question.

One point to Trump, and zero to both Ramos and his employer, Univision.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Why I Find It Hard To Give A F**k

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.