The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

Logic says that the "vape" craze, which has reached into people who have never smoked and might never choose to smoke actual cigarettes, is materially safer than smoking itself.

The logic appears to be sound, but it may also be wrong according to researchers:

Tokyo (AFP) - E-cigarettes contain 10 times the level of cancer-causing agents as regular tobacco, Japanese scientists said Thursday, the latest blow to an invention once heralded as less harmful than smoking.


Researchers commissioned by Japan's Health Ministry found carcinogens such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in vapour produced by several types of e-cigarette liquid, a health ministry official told AFP.

Exactly how these two chemicals wind up being produced is not yet known with certainty, but both are reasonably-simple molecules.  Very small amounts are normally present in the environment (from both natural and man-made sources) but concentrated they're both bad news.

The theory appears to be that the heating of the vapor results in the production of these chemicals and that poor control of the heating process may exacerbate the amount produced.

Much more study is needed but if you're using one of these things in the belief that you're materially better off in terms of safety than by smoking an actual cigarette please be aware that in terms of health risks it may actually be better, believe it or not, to smoke!

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2014-11-27 00:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 145 references

Just read the original here:

For a limited time only my posting from Thanksgiving 2010 has been re-opened to your viewing -- but not commentary.

Nothing has changed for historical facts never change -- do they?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

This is what you get America.

It is what you get when you allow a "President" to issue executive actions that are clearly unlawful -- and yet he is not immediately impeached for doing so.

It is what you get when you allow a "President" to intentionally deceive all of you (who didn't bother paying attention, or were too busy bowing before your baby Jesus) in passing a law that protects a panoply of firms that between them monopolize nearly a fifth of our economy.

And now, between the two, you have a "President" who has and will destroy literal millions of blue-collar jobs because he has provided a $3,000 a year incentive to businesses to legally hire 5 million illegal invaders instead of citizens!

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

Got it yet America?

You not only are being forced to tolerate these illegal invaders, those who wish to immigrate here legally are not only being ignored while these lawless invaders roam our land, your jobs are now going to go to them as they are $3,000 a year cheaper to employ than you because they're exempt from Obamacare's requirements while you are not.

This is not an accident.  This outcome is is exactly what you get when you allow The Rule of Law to become a dead letter, you sit and watch Dancing With The Stars instead of rising in outrage and you refuse to demand that Congress impeach the Constitution-hating, America-destroying jackass infesting the White House.

This man has taken action after action that empower banks to steal your homes, further empower medical monopolists to steal everything you have, intentionally provided guns to Mexican drug gangs used to murder more than 300 people (in Mexico) and at least one border agent, and empower illegal invading hoards to steal your jobs by subsidizing their employment to the tune of $3,000 over you as a citizen.  And he's not alone -- his predecessors did many of the exact same things, irrespective of their political party!

Stop whining America because it is a fact that for nearly all of you -- with the exception of the banksters and medical monopolists -- you are being flat-out bled dry because each and every day you wake up and through your action and inaction consent to all of the above and more.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

You have the authority, States.

You have it because McCarran-Ferguson not only exempts insurance businesses from federal regulation it also exempts them from federal antitrust law, and in addition reserves that regulatory authority to the States.

It was not modified by Obamacare!

That is, the authority it grants still exists and this means that state Racketeering statutes, along with anti-trust statutes, absolutely apply should the States want them to.

Either the States do this or they are going to go bankrupt -- including Illinois!

Belz concluded that a 1970 constitutional provision barring cuts to public employee retirement benefits trumps the state’s claim that it has the power to trim future cost-of-living adjustments and delay retirement eligibility for some workers.

“The court finds there is no police power or reserved sovereign power to diminish pension benefits,” he said, voiding the legislation in its entirety and permanently barring the state from enforcing any part of it.

Stupidity has consequences.  In this case the stupidity dates to 1970.

However, there remains one way out: Start prosecuting the insurance and medical industry for violating anti-trust law.

If you need to change laws to enable that prosecution first, then do so.  That the States can absolutely do.

Then start locking people up -- and collapse the cost of medical care by 80-90%.

Problem solved.

The courts are foreclosing the other option -- interdicting the problem for public unions but still screwing the non-union public.  This leaves only one path: Fix it for everyone.

All it takes is one state that does so and it will gain huge competitive advantage.  People will flock there -- and away from the states that refuse to follow suit.

You're out of time Illinois, and so are other states.

Either act, or not.  Your choice.

But you can't force people to remain in a ****hole of your design and construction, intended to and acting to bankrupt everyone in it.

Time's up.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

The decision was "no bill" which isn't all that surprising -- but I maintain that this case had to go to a petit jury and be heard in public -- not in the "privacy" of a Grand Jury room.  The reason is this:

Wilson then fired another round of shots as Brown approached Wilson as if he was going to tackle the officer.

“Just coming straight at me like he was going to run right through me,” Wilson said. “And when he gets about … 8 to 10 feet away … all I see is his head and that’s what I shot.”

I cannot square that with the forensics -- specifically, if Brown was coming straight at Wilson at a full charge, and he was shot in the process of that charge, being killed instantly as we know occurred from the forensics where is the damage to his knees, legs, arms and/or other body parts from falling forward onto pavement while at said full charge?

This is the problem that I cannot resolve between the testimony and the physical evidence and it deserves to be heard in public and resolved.

I believed and still do believe that only an indictment would lead to the exposition and determination of these facts, and thus whether Brown was lawfully stopped in the middle of his assault or was killed in an act of manslaughter or worse.

However, like it or not you have to respect the process.  If it's broken (and I believe it is in circumstances such as this) we need to change that rather than looting and burning the town.

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.