The Market Ticker - Cancelled
What 'They' Don't Want Published
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. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.


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.

2022-06-26 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 1323 references
[Comments enabled]  

.... all you have left is violence

Having just secured a landmark decision vindicating our clients’ constitutional Second Amendment rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we were presented with a stark choice—withdraw from representing them or withdraw from the firm. There was only one choice: We couldn’t abandon our clients simply because their positions are unpopular in some circles.

This sort of behavior by law firms should and must lead to their immediate forced dissolution and disbarment of the firm's partners and principals.


Because if it doesn't we will inevitably wind up shooting each other.

Why do drug dealers shoot each other over a corner?  Because they can't sue.

It's not that shooting is preferrable; it's not.  As soon as the guns come out you might get shot, where if you sue and lose you may get hit with a money judgment -- but you don't die.  Once violence is all you have death is part of the equation and since you can only sentence someone to die one time, no matter how many other people they kill, all the rest after the first one are free.

That are very uncomfortable and inconvenient facts -- but they are facts.

Our adversarial process only works when competent representation is available.  When groups of attorneys -- not individuals but firms representing dozens, hundreds or thousands of legal professionals blackball particular positions because they disagree with them socially that destroys the adversarial process and acts as a judiciary without exposition of the evidence or trial.

If you want to know why nobody has brought suit over what appears to be blatantly fraudulent data mishandling with the jabs, this is likely why.  Now we have law firms doing so for Second Amendment cases, which is tantamount to lawyers deciding among themselves that the Second Amendment is void, of no effect and will not be litigated or defended.

An attorney is an officer of the court -- not a mere private businessperson.  This sort of interference with the bringing of legitimate cases, and in this circumstance the case which led to the issue was won, and therefore by the highest court in the land found to be virtuous, is not only outrageous its un-American.

There is only one resolution that does not lead to violence: The firms involved in this sort of thing, in each and every instance, must be ejected from the courts and their partners and participating members disbarred.

If we don't insist on that and make it happen in this case and all similar others legitimate litigants with a valid beef are effectively denied any and all legal options for redress.  If someone cannot find recourse to the law due to deliberate collusive action of this sort then their decision to find recourse via all that remains available to them is both legitimate and expected.

If these people turn into analogs of the gang-banger on the corner when their beef should legitimately be heard in a courtroom, but they are unable to find competent representation to bring said suits, it is the direct responsibility of firms like this, along with we who refuse to demand their dissolution and disbarment, that caused it to occur.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2022-06-25 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 796 references
[Comments enabled]  

We're about to find out if all the bleating about a Constitutional Republic -- and the entire basis for not choosing to simply take whatever you want from whoever might have it, by whatever means you need to use (up to and including killing them) means anything or not.

The Supreme Court has issued two opinions of note that define quite-clearly that there are limits on what the Government can enact, and those limits in our Constitution are binding.

The first, striking down NY's (and several other) laws requiring you must show an extraordinary reason to have available a weapon for self-defense beyond the confines of your own home was blindingly unconstitutional a century ago when the "law" was enacted.  Nonetheless it took a century for the Supremes to tell NY to stick it up their ass.  The ruling goes nowhere near far enough in that rights do not require permission slips to exercise, and only when proved to be misused in an assault against another may they be constrained.  You have a right to free speech but if you blast your speech through a megaphone at someone else's house at 3:00 AM you can be compelled to stop.  The same speech, delivered by the same megaphone, on a busy public sidewalk is perfectly legal and, if you don't like it, that's just tough crap.

The 2nd Amendment is about protecting one's life, liberty and property from those who would take it by violence.  Yes, that means if government goons come to take same by violence in direct contravention to your natural rights you can shoot them.  If you don't think so then you live in a nation that has no right to exist and thus none of your alleged Constitutional protections exist either because America is here for the precise reason that the colonists shot the British when they came to take their property -- specifically, their guns and ammunition.  Whether there is one nutjob with a gun or a hundred of them wearing magic costumes is immaterial; it is the act itself you have the right to defend yourself against irrespective of who's committing it.

The cognitive dissonance within the left and our so-called "ruling class" on this point is ridiculous. Not one politician has a right to obtain or remain in office if they do not uphold this fact, for the entire political structure upon which their office rests is void if, in fact, they do not acknowledge and agree that such a right exists -- and existed before the United States did.  Since said right vests in the people and the government never had it there is no capacity to lawfully interfere with same since to grant or withhold something you must first have rightful possession of it.

That's the beginning and end of it.

The 6-3 Dobbs ruling, which overturned Roe (and which should not be a surprise given it was leaked in a puerile and outrageous attempt to derail same) likewise is not what the left says it is, nor is it what the right says it is.  While Roe certainly did attempt to draw upon an alleged right to privacy and bodily autonomy we just spent the last two years destroying both and not one single government official was hanged, shot, run out of town or set on fire for doing it, so those of you who argue that is the premise on which Roe rested and that you "respect" such can **** off.  Indeed the same diffuse "public benefit" argument is more applicable to an unborn child in that without children there is no society at all, yet just as with so-called "public health" arguments the benefit to any particular person is diffuse and impossible to prove in advance.  The fact that the so-called left didn't immediately sack every political agency and politician who locked down the country, enforced mask mandates and passed or supported jab requirements proved that they have no principles behind their position at all and never did -- it was and is baseless and indefensible authoritarian crap that drove all of it.  I was once a fairly staunch defender of the original split in Roe, but the last two years have proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that there never was an honest position taken on the other side.

In point of fact those on the left in regard to this issue are no better than the British soldiers who tried to confiscate guns at Concord and thus have no right to any of the Constitution's protections themselves since they have explicitly repudiated said Constitution upon which the entirety of their claim to office and alleged "power", such as it is, rests.

Indeed all the caterwauling about "assigned sex at birth" (coming from these same people, incidentally) is just more bull**** piled upon bull****.  We know, with absolute certainty and have since microscopes were invented when life begins and when the immutable characteristics of said life become fixed.  That event occurs in every sexually-reproducing organism down to the lowliest sexed plant when the male and female gametes fuse and there is not a thing you can do beyond that instant in time to change it.

Thus what isn't subject to debate by any honest person is when distinct life exists.  What is subject to debate is when and under what circumstances does life acquire Constitutional protection?  You can put down your dog, cat, cow or chicken irrespective of its state of birth or age.  None of that matters and other than by unreasonable cruelty there is no crime involved in killing any of them.  We assign by dint of political process superior and in fact distinct and unique rights to the species of animal called Homo Sapiens.  The species rhesus macaque, on the other hand, despite being both intelligent and a mammal, and thus quite close to Homo Sapiens from a biological perspective, can be killed and medically experimented on through any point in its existence from conception forward without criminal consequence.  Mus musculus can be fed to your pet snake while alive, or you can let your cat play with (and eat) one and all is well.

The premise that one person has the right to kill another distinct Homo Sapiens entity that has not yet been born (the 14th Amendment specifically attaches said protections at birth) yet any other person who does so is charged with murder (if intended) or manslaughter (if through negligence) and prosecuted is a political question.  Indeed our modern society has wildly divergent views on this; in some jurisdictions a woman who is pregnant and smokes meth, resulting in harm to or death of the fetus can be criminally charged while in others she will not be.  That is a political debate, not one of fact, since it is fact that at the moment of conception a distinct Homo Sapiens entity exists and the actual debate thus isn't about life -- it is about when and under what circumstances said life acquires the pre-government rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all three of which are protected and allegedly recognized (but not granted) by the Constitution and, under its present language (14th Amendment again), said attachment occurs at birth.

The entire premise of the 50 States, rather than one country with no division of power is that serious questions of this sort frequently do not have fact-based answers.  They have political answers, and diversity of political opinion and expression means that over time the better proposed answers will show superior outcomes while the lesser ones will show worse outcomes, which we can then analyze and refine political policies around.

Further, because our Constitution prohibits strictures on where you can travel and live within the 50 states those locales will, over time, either gain or lose people and political influence.  Yes, it takes a long time.  Go ask Lori Lightfoot how she likes the departure of multiple major corporations along with their employment and tax base from Chicago across the last few years.  Did that happen overnight?  No, it took decades and plenty of people with money who like the culture and such in said cities first tried to fix it through the political process.  It was only when that process was exhausted and the conclusion was reached that further attempts were pointless that the moves were made.

Such as it is now with Roe.  Those who want easy and immediate access to abortions and consider it a lifestyle issue worth residence can and should move to a state or town that will protect same.  There are several where the political winds hold that abortion, whether early on or all the way up to the moment of birth, is indeed something they wish to consider the sole domain of the woman in question.  If you hold that view then move to one of those places; U-Haul is ready when you are.

If you hold the opposite view -- that being Homo Sapiens confers protection from the moment of distinct life then move somewhere that has or will restrict or even ban abortion.

That is actual choice; those who believe they have a right to impose their views on others by force are not for choice at all.  They're for sticking a gun in your face and demanding you do what they want exactly as they did with Covid.  Witness the threats to burn or even kill from the left over this decision.

In a civilized society an act in furtherance of same is properly called felony assault and it confers upon the person assaulted the right to stop the assailant immediately, including through the use of deadly force.

No, the Supremes have not restored the Constitution as many on the right will claim.

But they did take a couple of the torn pieces of said Constitution that have been used as birdcage liner for decades and taped them back together.

There is much more to be restored and no guarantee our system of government will do so but this is, objectively, progress.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2022-06-24 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Covid-19 , 937 references
[Comments enabled]  

Well well look what we have here...

There were no cases of severe COVID illness in either the vaccine or placebo group. The Moderna vaccine had 4,774 children and the Pfizer vaccine had 4,526 (including those who received the placebo).


Even this was not statistically significant. In fact, it had a confidence statistic so wide, you could drive an aircraft carrier through it. (They reported the largest confidence interval I have ever seen in my 20-year research career). At one end of the range of possibilities indicated by the confidence interval, the vaccine could be associated with a 370% increased risk of getting COVID-19. The Moderna trial reported a short-term efficacy of 38% in preventing symptomatic illness–an effect well-known to be transient. 

It continues, and gets worse as you might expect.

This is the first piece of actual "uh, you are nuts" reporting in a mainstream publication I've seen.

What's worse than a jab that doesn't work?

One that might harm -- or kill you.

Killing your children used to be good for a nice long stay in prison.

It should be again.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2022-06-22 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Environment , 862 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is flat-out bull****.

"We're definitely looking at a hotter future," Katrina Bennett, hydrologist with the lab and lead author of the study, told CNN. "There will be more of that wet to dry sort of scenarios we're seeing, but regardless, we're going to see more minimum streamflow, increase in drier soils and lower snowpacks, which all together will lead to likelihood of drought increasing across the board especially in the upper areas where we really haven't seen that intense drought stress yet."


Yes, Yellowstone's flooding is bad.

But I was just out that way.  What I saw was.... astounding.

On the western side of the Teton pass headed to Idaho Falls the road more-or-less follows the Snake River as it meanders around.  I was stunned by what I saw -- houses upon houses all built in what was obvious flood plain.  The land was close to the river, flat and part of the historical flood boundary, which is clear if you just look at it from a slightly-elevated vantage point (the road); you need no special training or education to see it.  That land is quite-fertile for the same reason the land around the Mississippi River is -- it gets flooded periodically and that refreshes the soil.

The older housing stock and older commercial construction was safely away from that -- above it, and on clear land above the flood-space ridge.  The  people who built those places knew how to look at the land and say "uh, that would be nice to have a house right on the river but if we're stupid enough to do that it will either be flushed downstream eventually or we'll have 2' of nasty, muddy water in our living room."

Oh, you say, but its so awful further south?  Oh c'mon -- quit the bull****.

Have a look at Wolf Creek Ski area.

"Globull Warming" has caused their snow deposition to drop eh?  Really?  Their long-term average is 400 inches a year of snow. Yeah, that's a lot of snow.  But what was it this year?  385".  Statistically-speaking, right on the money.

Fresh water that falls from the sky is not an inexhaustible resource.  Yes, it will be replenished.  But if you draw it faster than it comes down from the sky over time you will run out.  California has quadrupled in population since 1950, roughly.  Nevada has had its population explode by a factor of roughly 20 over the same period of time.  Arizona had about 750,000 residents in 1950 and today sports over 7.5 million, an expansion of about ten times.

Hoover Dam was completed in 1936 and the snowfall and land area from which Lake Mead collects water has not increased by one square foot since, obviously, while the number of people who think they can just come out there and draw on an inexhaustible resource has skyrocketed.

Folks this is not "climate change", its people overwhelming a fixed resource.  No small part of those people are illegal immigrants and the spawn they dropped out after coming here too, so our policy of "open door anywhere, come and******our land" is and has been for decades bringing ruin.

The southwest is full of desert.  Drive around out there and you will see all manner of scrub and other material that is characteristic of land that sometimes receives rainfall but on an infrequent and relatively dispersed basis.  The vegetation in an area tells you what you're dealing with when it comes to the long-term rainfall patterns and how much water you can realistically extract from same without running into depletion problems.  Simply put when you toss 10 or 20x as many people on a given area of land without concern for such things you're asking to get it up the ass, and now those people who did that are.

We issue building permits to corporations that put up this and that without a single care in the world about forcing them to fund the development of resources necessary for said people that they will then sell same to -- and nobody gets prosecuted for fraud either, as they damn well should building at a capacity they know is well beyond the carrying capacity of the land.

I'm not talking about the ongoing maintenance and upkeep cost; that's paid for by user fees and property taxes -- no, the capital cost to increase capacity is never assessed in impact fees and the screaming is always that "if we did that they'd go somewhere else."

Good!  Let them ruin someone else's part of the country!

I fought this repeatedly when I lived in the Panhandle and always lost, but refused to shut up about it regardless.  You want to put up another condo?  Fine.  Pay an impact fee that covers the increased road capacity construction and utility build-out necessary to serve the people who come when you're done, and do it up front.  No?  GTFO.

That is where the entire problem lies.

If Nevada, Arizona and California had decided (one or all) to force the payment of impact fees to fund the construction of desalination plants for said residential and commercial expansion there would be no problem with Lake Mead or anywhere else.  There is plenty of water off California, of course, but its salty.  But -- they didn't, instead believing that Lake Mead and its feeds and downstream were inexhaustible irrespective of putting ten times or more the user load that was formerly there on said watershed.  The same is true for electrical infrastructure; it's fine to expect the bill to cover the maintenance of same, just as property taxes should over time, but not the construction which has to take place before the people show up.

These impacts are not due to "globull" anything.  That infamous house that washed into the river near Yellowstone was stupidly build right in a riverbank on land that is clearly part of where the river carved, and might again since it did before.  Well, it did.  Big shock, right?

Just wait for the whining when the Snake River blows into its historical flood plain and all those couple of million dollar places I saw have two feet of water in their lower level or are washed off their foundations by the swift water and completely destroyed.  We'll hear the whining, I'm sure -- when the real problem is that the people who built them there were stupid.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2022-06-21 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 516 references
[Comments enabled]  

Ok, so they're half-crazy.

World swimming's governing body has effectively banned transgender women from competing in women's events, starting Monday.

FINA members widely adopted a new "gender inclusion policy" on Sunday that only permits swimmers who transitioned before age 12 to compete in women's events. The organization also proposed an "open competition category."

Here's the problem: The ban should be absolute, since advocating for, which this does, the destruction of a minor's sexual function ought to get you locked up in a cell full of fire ants.

I have no quarrel with an "open" competition group but let's cut the crap: When it comes to events where musculature and cardio are determinative of success there are going to be a severe deficit of "XX" chromosome people successfully competing in such events.

For those of you who continue to insist on stupid, have a look here.

I just ran this race a few days ago.  I placed 21st overall and got bumped for first in division (50-59 age men) by 10 seconds.  I couldn't beat that guy, but I did keep Hanna and Michael from passing me.  In fact I passed her on the way into the stadium, where the finish was, and I could hear her behind me.  Nope, not today, said I, and the last part of it, which was around the warning track and then a run around the bases from 1st to Home where the mat was, got what I had left -- which was, surprisingly, a decent little bit after the fairly-ugly hills on the course itself.

Now look at the people faster than I was.  There were 20 of them.  Three were women and all three were at least 20 years younger than I am, with one being 15.  The closest 50+ woman in the race finished 44th overall at 29:01, more than four minutes behind me.

That's not because I'm Superman; I am most-definitely NOT.  It's because I was conceived by a combination of sperm and egg that contained an XY chromosome pair and, from that moment forward, my physiology developed differently than someone who was conceived with an XX chromosome pair.  This is determined at the moment of conception by the male's sperm which is either "XO" or "XY" and beyond that instant in time there's nothing you can do about it, ever, no matter what you do.

Once in a while you get an error in that process like all other biological processes.  This is how mutation happens in every organism and yet in virtually every case these are defects, when you get down to it.  That is, they produce harm objectively -- someone with Klinefelter's, for example, is "XXY" and typically has a micropenis.  Most men (and, I dare say, most women) would consider that a defect.

AP and all the screaming "advocates" are lying.  For example:

The debate essentially boils down to advocates who want to protect the space Title IX carved out for cisgender women — women whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth — and those who want transgender athletes who compete as females to enjoy the same protections as anyone else. Consensus is nowhere in sight, and the fights are piling up.

Sex is not "assigned" at birth; that is a damned lie and anyone who runs it should be loudly shouted down, and if necessary and they try to turn that lie into public policy, jailed or worse.

You don't "assign" sex at birth you recognize what is or is not present at the time of birth as objective fact.

If the baby has a penis it is male.  If the baby has a vulva and no penis it is female.  Period.

If it truly isn't clear genetic testing will prove one way or another, but it is rarely not clear.  About one in a thousand, or 0.1% of children, are not instantly and obviously male or female at the time of birth and that is not "assigned" -- it was determined by which sperm and egg joined at the moment of conception.  Anyone who claims an "assignment" was made by someone -- anyone -- at birth is a damned liar and a monster.  Period.

From said lie all the rest of the remaining bull**** with regard to this issue flows.

Title IX may be a wart-filled mess but it was passed because women's sports typically received less funding.  Is that "fair"?  Do you have a right, as a consequence of being alive, to "fairness" in that regard?  I argue the answer is NO because the fundamental issue is what people wish to spend money attending and thus which particular thing(s) attract more voluntary financial support.

Nobody is forced to go to a football game and spend money.  They go because they want to see it.  In a marketplace of ideas the best ones attract the most money.

To force "equality" in this regard is to steal from those who, in the view of the general public, are more attractive of someone's funds.  If people pay $100 for a ticket to watch men throw a pigskin around and tackle one another, but will not fill a stadium at any price when women play their version of said game, whether it be football, baseball/softball, basketball or similar that's not "inequality" -- its consumer preference.

To forcibly extract $20 of that $100 football ticket and give it to the girls sports team is theft at gunpoint and no amount of arm-waving and bull**** changes that.  Yet here we are, and now, having argued for the  "feelz" said women are screwed because the very same "feelz" are being weaponized by men who take drugs or even cut off their penis because they are profoundly unhappy with what happened at the time their first cell came into existence and therefore wish to punish others for their unhappiness.

Women deserve this outcome because it was women who argued against fact in the first place and demanded this garbage be put in place originally.  If you want women's sports to have a big gate (and thus be self-supporting) figure out what people want to pay to attend and support and provide it.

FINA is right but again the problem arose in the first place because feelz were put before facts and weaponized.  This in turn allowed those who know damn well they've got a biological advantage conferred upon them at the moment of conception in certain sports to turn around and "Black Knight" women's sports, taking the very arguments that were made to put feelz before facts and shoving it up women's asses.

The answer isn't to talk about "trans" anything.

The answer is to stop being stupid and repeal that which was passed to legislate feelz that contradicted facts, in this case Title IX, and tell those who are factually men but wish they were women that while they're free to do whatever they'd like in their private lives once they are adults at their own expense we will not, as a society, allow them to screw women out of a fair contest nor will we let them screw anyone of either sex out of a single nickel to assuage their insanity -- or anyone else's.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)