The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
2017-05-25 08:33 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 108 references
[Comments enabled]  

No, you can't see the article or video here that I teased a couple weeks ago.

You have to this place and read it.

Yes, the video is mine (obviously, once you see it.)  The article that goes with it is not, but it's quite good reading.

Maybe you'll make this "other place", which is not mine but is written by someone I know rather well, part of your daily blog list just as you do here.  You can easily get there by just clicking the cute picture on the top right of the page...

I recommend it....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2017-05-25 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Personal Health , 116 references
[Comments enabled]  

These people need to be held accountable for everyone who dies as a consequence of this garbage.

We can start with prison and go from there.

Age doesn’t just pack on the pounds — it changes where those pounds go. The culprit? Sex hormones. As these decrease over time, men and women’s weights tend to shift in predictable ways.


The culprit is accumulated metabolic damage from eating high carbohydrate diets.

Of course nobody does this sort of study, because if you do you'll get the truth in irrefutable scientific form.  What sort of study?  It's not difficult but it does take a lot of time since you need to follow people for decades.

Start pulling insulin and glucose levels (A1c is an inexpensive marker to test) and you will find that most people over time have slowly rising insulin levels even though their A1c and fasting blood glucose is normal. There's an even better surrogate for it that requires no testing -- it's called a scale.  Most men and women start to gain weight in their 20s although it's relatively slow and the huge majority of doctors and others won't raise any alarms on it.

2-3 pounds a year is 20-30lbs over a decade.  I remind you that you cannot possibly "manually" count calories at a sufficient resolution to prevent this consciously; 2lbs is 6,500 calories, more or less, which means you'd have to be accurate to within 20 calories a day on your food intake every single day in order to avoid it.  That's impossible; 20 calories is quite-literally about one teaspoon of sugar or a fraction of an ounce (one small bite!) of meat.  Nobody can count that accurately through manual, intentional means.

Your body, however, has the metabolic mechanisms to regulate food intake to that degree of accuracy all on its own just as it has metabolic mechanisms to regulate blood pressure, blood sugar, pH, oxygen saturation and dozens of other critical metabolic parameters -- any of which will kill you if they go out of range.

The reason you get fat is that you have damaged that metabolic control mechanism.

The "advice" is just flat-out wrong:

“The biggest thing is to be consistent with our healthy eating and exercise,” she said, adding that weight training is especially essential to prevent the loss of lean muscle mass, a process that can make our bodies less metabolically active. And opting for a high-fiber diet full of fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins can help stave off the weight gain that would turn into excess pounds.

Total nonsense.

Fruits have a high caloric density.  They also absorb quickly, especially if juiced or otherwise concentrated (e.g. dried fruits, etc.)  In a natural world you can also only get them for a short period of time because they only occur in an edible form for a few days or weeks in a given area out of the year.  Eating blackberries on a hand-picked basis where you can find them wild during the time you can find them wild won't hurt you, simply because there aren't many of them you can eat in a given year in a given place!

Our "modern world" changes all that; now you can have strawberries, grapes, oranges and other fruits all the time which is flatly impossible on a natural basis.  It is insanely irrational to believe that our bodies can adapt to such a change in our pattern of food intake on a rapid basis; adaptation of a species to environmental changes takes millennia, not years or decades.

"High-fiber" is often touted as some sort of panacea.  It is not, for the simple reason that "high fiber" foods are inherently low in calories.  That which you cannot digest just takes up space; that's the definition of "fiber" in a food.  It means nothing in terms of caloric intake because the fibrous foods you eat are an immaterial part of your total calorie requirement.

There are only three foods when you get down to it -- carbohydrates, proteins and fats.  Of them fiber is only present in carbohydrates to any material degree and in general fiber is only present in material amounts in low-calorie density carbohydrate foods.  This doesn't stop a manufacturer from adding fiber to a food (and many do) but that's usually a reason to not eat whatever it is because added fiber usually tastes terrible and as a result the manufacturer is forced to add sugars in some form to make it palatable, which is exact opposite of what you want to eat.

For fiber in your diet you want to eat green vegetables.  For example one cup of broccoli (which isn't much!) has 135% of your daily Vitamin C requirement -- one of the few substances we cannot synthesize due to a genetic error in our DNA.  It also contains roughly 10% of your daily fiber recommended amount.  However, it also has just 31 calories -- an insignificant component of your caloric intake requirement.

Brussels Sprouts are similar; they have just 38 calories, 124% of your Vitamin C requirement and 13% of your fiber needs -- again, in one cup.

In short yes you should eat fibrous foods but you should eat them in the form of green vegetables which tend to be low in caloric content and high in those things your body cannot synthesize and thus must get from consumed food, specifically Vitamin C.

The problem with the cited recommendation is that it says nothing about where the bulk of your caloric intake should come from!  The 2% from the cup of sprouts or broccoli are immaterial to the total.  The question is what do you do with the 98%.

The answer is that it should contain almost zero carbohydrate.  This means the claim of "lean protein" is false; it has to be for the simple reason that you can't reasonably consume enough lean protein mass to make up the bulk of your intake either on a mass basis or a money basis.

And that brings you back to either fats or carbohydrates.

One spikes your insulin levels and then makes you ravenously hungry.  The other absorbs far more slowly and has nearly zero impact on insulin, and thus you don't get hungry.

In short one makes you fat, both directly by stimulating you to eat more and indirectly by damaging the metabolic response system that would otherwise prevent it from being stored on your body as fat.  The other does exactly the opposite; it not only absorbs more-slowly it has essentially zero insulin response and does not stimulate you to eat more in a couple of hours.

Among fats there are two types -- unsaturated (mostly plant-based) and saturated (mostly animal-based.)  One occurs naturally and both human and beast have been eating it in quantity since said species has walked on the planet or swam in its oceans.  The other does not occur naturally in any material quantity.  Yes, there is oil in corn (from which we get corn oil of course) but to consume even a tiny amount of it through natural sources you'd have to eat a bushel of corn.  Cottonseed oil is of course in cotton seeds but nobody eats cotton seeds in their natural form.  In short no vegetable oil is "naturally occurring" in any material amount in a diet comprised of actual plants.

Unfortunately essentially all plant-based oils have a terrible balance between Omega 3 and 6, and we know that Omega 6 materially increases inflammation in the body.  Inflammation is ultimately what causes all sorts of health problems; the body reacts to inflammation by attempting to cover up and heal it.  This is a good reaction when you (for example) stick yourself with a thorn.  It's a very bad reaction when it occurs in your cardiac arteries!

The point here is that it was impossible when eating a "natural" diet of plants to get any material amount of Omega 6 from these oils.  Today it's trivial since everyone and their damned brother "recommends" substituting plant-based oils for animal-based ones, yet those plant-based oils are all highly-concentrated to a degree (by a factor of 100x or more) that is impossible to achieve by natural consumption of the plant involved.

What's even worse is that being unsaturated these oils tend to oxidize rapidly at room temperature and it only gets worse when they're heated.  This in turn has led manufacturers to hydrogenate them -- that is, to add hydrogen through a chemical process to stabilize them so the foods doesn't require refrigeration and is stable on a shelf in a store.  These are what are called "trans-fats" and while very small amounts do occur in nature it is again impossible to get any material quantity of them without eating machine-processed oils.  There is decent evidence that the "safe" amount of such fats in your diet is in fact zero.

The bottom line is this -- if you eat green vegetables you will get both the fiber and necessary vitamins your body cannot synthesize.  If you eat the balance of your caloric intake from proteins and saturated fats you will both provide a decent Omega 3:6 balance (which reduces inflammation), not spike your insulin levels, not be hungry all the time and thus allow your natural metabolic system that regulates your appetite to function normally.

You won't get fat, if you are fat you'll lose the fat and at the same time you are likely to improve your health.

More detail?  Find out how to evaluate where you personally are from a metabolic perspective here and what to eat (and not) here.

Finally, I remind you that Type II diabetes is not just about taking pills.  It inevitably leads to severe and irreversible consequences including amputations, blindness and, quite-frequently, kidney failure which always results in dialysis.  The latter usually kills you after some period of time on it unless you get a transplant.  All of these consequences are both extremely expensive and permanently debilitating.  If you have not yet suffered these consequences there's a good chance you can avoid them entirely if you get the carbs out of your diet.

Oh, and for the jackwads who recommend eating all those carbs -- and plant-based oils along with cereals, like this one -- and who is himself fat, probably from taking his own advice?  Perhaps we should contemplate eating them; most of them, if not nearly-all, are definitely high fat and moderate (or even low) protein in composition.  Finally, when do we start asking the obvious question: Why should anyone take advice on what to eat and how to remain healthy on a metabolic basis from someone who obviously has damaged their own natural metabolic mass control pathways and further demonstrates by mere observation that they're unable to control their own mass by either natural or "intellectual" means?  Further, exactly why do we not deem such a person who claims some sort of "medical credential" and dispenses said advice professionally bogus and why isn't said person immediately laughed at whenever and wherever he or she appears?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2017-05-23 12:25 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 600 references
[Comments enabled]  

There is this ugly and pervasive "political" view that Islamic Terrorism is some "new thing."  It usually comes with some line of crap about how we've "created" these monsters by invading their nations and displacing "their" people, and that "we" (the western world generally) are responsible.

This is a bald lie.

Islamic terrorism dates back centuries.  It was a problem in the form of piracy and slavery in the early days of our Republic -- long before we had a military that could invade anything.  The "big lie" is proved again in the present by these people attacking nations that have formally eschewed any sort of association or funding for any sort of "military adventurism."  Yet they get blown up and shot just the same.

The root of the problem is not complicated.  Their very "holy book" proclaims that one who is not Muslim has, in fact, three and only three choices: Slavery, conversion or death.

In the United States we have Freedom of Speech.  It's written into our Constitution and in fact is the first freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  In "muslim" nations blasphemy is typically a serious crime.  It is one thing to look askance at someone who says "God doesn't exist"; it is quite another to throw them in prison.

Similarly "slandering a prophet" is frequently a crime.  It is a fact that Islam's "holiest" prophet took children as his wives, and yes, that's plural.  Leave polygamy out of it for there are arguments for that if you're trying to "be fruitful and multiply"; nobody in the modern world believes that marrying a child is acceptable and yet to merely speak critically of such behavior with regard to certain people in these nations is a criminal offense.

Our so-called "muslim nation partners", including Saudi Arabia, criminalize homosexuality.  It is a criminal offense for which one can be imprisoned for years or even killed.  Some of these nations also practice female genital mutilation: they cut off the clitoris of young girls so as to deny them sexual pleasure at any time in their life.

It is true that the majority of the victims of islamic terror are in fact muslims.  That's because there are two "branches" or "sects" of Islam and they hate each other with a white-hot passion.  This more than occasionally has led to wars and various forms of terrorism over the millennia.  Is it any surprise that such terrorism often hits muslims when there are two branches that hate one another with enough passion to kill?

You can look through the Bible of both Christian faiths and the Old Testament of same (commonly known as the Pentateuch) which is functionally the same as the Jewish Torah, and find various demands for ostracism given certain behaviors or worse.  If you're unfamiliar with where to find such prohibitions and declarations of punishment look in Leviticus 20 for starters -- there's a nice list there.  But those faiths grew up over time and with damn few exceptions none make argument for actual execution or imprisonment for same in the modern world.

Muslims have refused to grow up, in short.

They've only had 1,000 or so years to do so and have continually refused including state-level actors such as Saudi Arabia while time and technology have marched on and replaced spears, sailing ships, cannon and longbows with modern firearms, howitzers, missiles, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and more.  The religiously insane are no longer limited to taking lives one at a time; they can now put together concoctions and wear them into a stadium, murdering dozens.  It is only a matter of time before some of these nutjobs come up with enough fissile material and sufficient ability to fashion a crude nuclear device at which point you can be assured they will use it.

At what point do a civilized people demand that this madness stop?  And with what force are we willing to demand that it does?  I argue the time has long passed to say "enough damnit" and put forward the premise that if you support this ideology -- not just with money but with your judicial system in any form or fashion then civilized people are done with all who hold such views and all of their enablers.

Let's bring this into the present and our current multi-billion dollar technology companies.

Neither Twitter or Facebook will ban a user for espousing that someone who insults a prophet or religion, specifically in relationship to Islam should be KILLED.  Even a fairly-specific threat to murder a specific person if that someone doesn't "stop" maligning a religious practice or belief does not cross their lines.

Folks, if you are making possible the continued operation of these firms by your presence and use of them then you are contributing, in a real and present sense, to the spreading of this hate and the religious ideology that it is acceptable to kill persons who disagree with a given view of a particular religion or religious person.

This makes YOU PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE in part for what just happened in Manchester; you made possible the recruiting, you made possible the gloating and you make possible here, now and today the communication channels that these people use to churn themselves and others into the frothy madness that then results in the murder of innocent people by suicide bombers.

You further this activity by being on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter by providing them with the market capitalization and advertising revenue that they rely on to exist.

Facebook and Twitter, among others, have decided that selling advertising targeted at savages who threaten to murder those they disagree with is more important then your life and you personally and continually approve of that decision by being part of their "user base" -- which is all they have to sell to the advertisers that make their operation as businesses possible.  They could instantly banhammer anyone who levels such a personalized threat but they refuse and you allow them to continue to refuse by funding their madness right alongside the islamic nutjobs.

Deal with it because those concert-goers blood is on your hands.

And yeah, this means that's now my message and purpose for being on both.  To make sure people understand that they are fomenting and furthering terrorism since these firms will not remove the accounts of those who express such threats.

I have personal experience with this when I ran my ISP (MCSNet) in the form of a different but somewhat-related "ethnic difference."  I had users from one "side" on my system -- who were welcome despite having "very strong" views and expressing them regularly -- right up until they posted an actual threat to commit a violent unlawful act.  Then they were done -- no second chances, no maybes, no ifs ands or buts.  Done, baked, account gone, terminated, finished.  Period.  Yes, this meant that I never again got a nickel from anyone "on that side" of the "debate."  That's the choice when it comes down to it: You either do the right thing or you sell yourself and your users for blood.

No, this doesn't mean we should bomb all these people back into the stone age -- until and unless they bomb or shoot at us.

But it does mean that civilized people must hold social media and realted firms accountable in full for their continued provision of tools and technology used to foment violence and froth these nutjobs into a state of mind where they will murder either individually or en-masse with a vest full of homemade explosives.  Those firms who refuse to immediately cancel accounts for blatant threats that inherently disrespect our very First Freedom must be driven from the marketplace of free ideas and markets.

Further, on a national level it does mean no trade with those nations that refuse to act on this same principle -- period.  No deals.  No immigration or "refugees."  No visitors, no ships, no nothing leaves their airspace or borders and I don't give a damn how much money you have or who's ass -- or hand -- you kiss.  We burn any bonds they bought in the past on the South lawn in a ceremony of peace.  In a world in which a "simple" ship full of alleged goods could instead have a makeshift nuke in the cargo hold, any land vehicle can be packed with explosives and any aircraft can (and some have) be carrying a bomb that kills all on board and perhaps many on the ground there simply is no argument remaining for allowing any passage of material or persons across the borders of such "nations" onto the land and airspace of civilized people.

While we should and in fact must not seek war, if those who refuse to respect human rights at the most-base levels want war then we'll give them war.  But they should be warned -- someone who has declared they will murder simply because someone prays the wrong way, insults a prophet or eats a ham sandwich has declared that they lack the capacity for critical thought and thus has become inimical to humanity as a whole.  Since they not only threaten to blow up or shoot anyone who disagrees they've repeatedly demonstrated they mean it if they demonstrate that they cannot be persuaded otherwise through peaceful means via direct and hostile action the choice of either "shoot them now or let them shoot us later" looks pretty obvious from my point of view.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2017-05-23 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 256 references
[Comments enabled]  

He knows folks.

He knows its coming, and yet he's going to take it out of your ass, and he has the entire GOP with him in doing it too.

What's "it"?  The medical cost explosion, which has run about 9% compounded for the last 30 years or so and which shows exactly no sign of slowing down, as I've noted repeatedly.  In fact Obamacare only got one year of flat spending in Medicare and Medicaid.


After which it went right back to where it was.

As I have repeatedly shown by the numbers just taking one condition (Type II diabetes) and changing how we deal with it -- turning it from a drug pusher mentality into one that is managed through changes in what one eats, a change in approach that works for virtually everyone with the condition to a material degree and has a good probability of returning blood sugar to normal without the use of any drugs at all would virtually eliminate the Federal deficit.

That of course ignores what could be done in general were we to simply enforce the same principles and premise that stands at the root of every other commercial transaction in a free market: You must be provided a price and consent to it before goods or services are rendered, and you may not be extorted into buying something you didn't want through discriminatory conduct.

These basic principles are ensconced in law both at the State and Federal levels -- via 15 USC Chapter 1 at the federal level and in both state and federal levels via various consumer protection and unfair trade practices legislation -- none of which has been enforced against anyone in the medical field for some three decades despite standing on the books today with no exemption for firms in said fields.

But..... no.

Instead Trump will propose to take roughly 25% off the Food Stamp program, mostly through requiring able-bodied people to work to receive benefits, and if they don't they get cut off.

He will propose to play with Medicaid, both cutting it directly and shifting it to the states.  Trump is of course well-aware that it's going to blow up the federal budget, so why not throw the hand grenade at the state budgets before it explodes?  Such a nice guy, when he could instead direct his AG to enforce the damn law and collapse cost.

There's a 10% increase in there for the DOD.  Warranted or not it will be trashed by the Democrats, of course.  But it's not the big news, really.

No, the big news in in the other places -- specifically the food stamp proposal and Medicaid.

Of course Trump claims he'll balance the budget in 10 years.  They always do, and always fail.  Even Clinton failed; he claimed it, he claimed success, but he in fact stole from the Social Security fund to make his numbers "balance"; if you stripped that back out he ran a deficit every single year of his Presidency.  He was so successful in running this lie and you lapping it up, by the way, that every President since has run the same scam with their "accounting."

Further, the fact of the matter is that whatever the President sends up is not really a budget at all, since all revenue bills must originate in the House (so says that pesky Constitution.)  It's better to think of it as a Santa Claus wishlist that Timmy sends off dutifully every year around Thanksgiving, and maybe his parents, having intercepted it, give him some what he asked for.


Too bad we won't hold any of the *******s in DC accountable -- especially when Mr. Law and Order won't enforce the damned law first and address the actual problem that is destroying America.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2017-05-22 11:47 by Karl Denninger
in Foreign Policy , 264 references
[Comments enabled]  

Oh really?

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia—The World Bank announced Sunday at an event with Ivanka Trump, the U.S. president’s daughter and senior White House adviser, that Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates have pledged a combined $100 million to a fund that will assist women entrepreneurs and small business owners.

Oh do come on.

The social media fawning over Trump's (and Ivanka's) involvement in this is nauseating.  And no, it has nothing to do with any parallel to the Clinton Foundation (there isn't one) either.

It has to do with this, which the WSJ did note:

Women live under restrictions in Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. The U.S. State Department has noted such issues in its past human-rights reports, but American officials haven’t publicly raised these concerns in Saudi Arabia during Mr. Trump’s visit. Saudi Arabia, where women aren’t permitted to drive, in particular excludes women from most aspects of public life and business.


Women are treated as chattel in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and many other muslim nations.  They're forbidden to drive, own businesses and in general conduct themselves as adults!

Oh, and these constraints?  They're dictated by said religion, which belies the entire concept of a great religion of peace, in that it by definition in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and elsewhere where such treatises have the force of law they treat half the population as sexual subservients and, effectively, slaves to men.

Do these constraints vary from muslim nation to nation?  Yeah.  So?  There is no muslim nation in which Sharia Law is practiced that protects rights equally between the sexes.  None.

Never mind homosexuality being flat-out illegal (and seriously so at that) in many of these nations with punishments (if you get caught) ranging from long terms of imprisonment to, in some cases, death.

If that's not enough should you dare speak out about such things you're likely to stand accused of blasphemy and be jailed or worse.  Yes, the "great religion of peace" prohibits debate that can be construed as maligning its precepts, acolytes or "prophets."

Human rights?  Only for men, and only if you love and pray -- both in the right way, of course.

Heh, I get it -- business is business and selling a bunch of guns to these guys is, well, business.

But I do wonder how long it will be before some of those weapons are used to kill our own people and whether Trump will stand accused as an accessory before the fact when, not if, they are -- because he is one.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
The Bill To Permanently Fix Health Care For All

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 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.