The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
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.

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 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.

2021-10-10 10:07 by Karl Denninger
in Interviews , 635 references
[Comments enabled]  

2021-10-09 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Employment , 5527 references
[Comments enabled]  

Likely explanation, beyond them being sick of your bull**** with mandates: They're DEAD.

But first, our usual report.

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 194,000 in September, and the unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 4.8 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Notable job gains occurred in leisure and hospitality, in professional and business services, in retail trade, and in transportation and warehousing. Employment in public education declined over the month.

This was a wild miss after ADP reported in on Wednesday.  I predicted that and it doesn't surprise me one bit.

Remember that this report captures during the survey week, which was in the middle of September, not "Friday."

And a quick reminder: I always work off the unadjusted household numbers.  Always have, always will.  You're free to use whatever you want but since Christmas comes every at the same time this tends to make intentional ****ery much harder, and the government is known for it.

The decline in the unemployment rate was not due to people "finding jobs."  It was due to over half a million of them deciding to walk off and not care.  That's a lot of people, and it's the second consecutive month after a strong of mostly-good news in that regard since January.  Last month also say a large (1.1 million) "walk off" rate.

What has changed?  Mandates came in this spring and now its jab mandates, not just masks although the last couple of months might well have been both -- specifically, many businesses going back to "Employees must wear one -- ha-ha we told you things would be normal if you just took the shot.  We lied."

The only people who gained ground this month were those with 4-year degrees or better.  Everyone else was stagnant.  Work from home, anyone?  No masks in your house, right?  That doesn't apply to people stocking shelves and moving material around though does it?

But that's not the real trouble sign here.  No, that's the annual run rate of non-institutional population over the last 12 months.  That is the total number of not-institutionalized people in the United States over the age of 16.  The only ways to leave that count once you join it on your 16th birthday are to:

  • Expatriate yourself and leave the US permanently.
  • Go to prison (you come back on it when you get out.)
  • Go to a nursing home (Reminder: The median life expectancy on admission to one is six months, after which you do the next.)
  • DIE.

The last two are basically the same thing since most people, once they go to a nursing home and come off the rolls for that reason never go back onto them, although you certainly could.

Deciding to hide in Mom's basement, going on disability or otherwise choosing never to work again whether by circumstance or personal decision does not remove you from this group.  It does take you out of the "workforce" number (and adds you to the "not in labor force" number) but not from this figure.

Here it is going back to the middle of 2020:

 

This number has run around 2 million on an annualized run-rate for a very long time.  It is somewhat responsive to economic booms and busts with a 16-17 year lag; more people make children, but when they do it takes 16-17 years for them to show up in this figure.  16-17 years ago was literally the best of times; birth rates were rising as we came out of the Tech Wreck.  Indeed in 2018 in December the annualized run rate was about 2.5 million.  It was in December of 2019 too -- right in front of Covid.  And in December of 2020 it was back to more-or-less baseline at 2.1 million.

So where did the 1.2 million people that should have been added to the workforce over the last year go?

They didn't go anywhere.  They were added.

This means the real question is who got subtracted?

The power of uncorrelated data sets is that the people who would **** with you through large-scale, institutional lying always forget about the uncorrelated data sets they do not control and thus are "out of their sphere of consciousness."

January of next year will be the adjustment month, as it always is.  But these estimates are what they are and if they're anywhere near accurate starting in February lots of people started dying who should not have died because the usual rate of death doesn't move these figures.

Something did -- and still is.

PS: Good luck trying to hire replacements if you fire those who refuse jabs in this sort of labor market.  If you're a corporation thinking it will all be good if you play "WokeToBiden" and will simply replace those you fire for their refusal to go along I'll be looking forward to your bankruptcy filing.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-09-28 14:04 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 408 references
 

 

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



2021-09-28 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 12095 references
[Comments enabled]  

Oh please.

This is not, as CNN has asserted (along with many others)https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/23/us/families-missing-black-people/index.html about the color of the person who is missing.

It is about the race of the person who is presumed even before there is evidence that a homicide occurred to have caused it and, to a lesser extent, the sex of the person who is missing.

A white girl in Iowa anyone?

I wrote about that at the time in some detail.  So long as the presumption was that a white male was responsible for Mollie's disappearance it was all over the news.  The second it became evident that it was likely an illegal immigrant who was responsible..... Crickets, and even a request from the family to "stand down and shut up."

In this case the witch hunt and lynch mob was out in force well-before there was evidence of a homicide for one -- and only one -- reason: The highest-probability perpetrator, if there had been a homicide, was a white man.

That was good for a lynch mob around the house even before there was evidence of a homicide.

Of course we now have that evidence in the form of a body and preliminary autopsy and thus the presumption shifts in a reasonable way.  But what happened before then was not reasonable, any more than it was reasonable to suddenly shut up as soon as the young woman in Iowa wound up with the evidence leading to an illegal immigrant as the most-likely perpetrator of her demise.

If you want to talk about racism how about protecting the perpetrators based on race?  We did it in Iowa.  We do it every weekend in Chicago -- HeyJackass anyone?  The vast majority of black people who are murdered are murdered by other black people.  Indeed it's not even a close call, despite roughly 13-14% of America being black.  Even in Chicago blacks are only 30% of the population yet of the homicides committed against blacks they committed nearly 80% of the killings for which an assailant has been identified in 2021.

Has Fox News, CNN or anyone else run breathless headlines for three weeks straight on a single one of those homicides or people who have gone missing in Chicago?  Oh Hell No.  Why not?  You know damn well why not and it has nothing to do with the race of the person who is missing.

It is almost-entirely about the race of the person who is the likely perpetrator, if indeed there was a crime committed, and only as a tiny secondary factor what sex the missing person happens to be.

Be white and male?  You'll get much less attention than if you're white and female.

But it's not because the missing person is white.

It's because the odds are quite high the perpetrator, if there was a homicide, is also white.

Let me know when the media is really ready to stop being a pack of racist and sexist bigots.

Hell is likely to freeze first.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2021-09-26 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 15757 references
[Comments enabled]  

What did we learn Friday?

1. Maricopa claimed there were no duplicate mail-in ballots.  In fact there were far more duplicates than those required to change the outcome in the Presidential race.  That has now been established.  Either (1) Maricopa lied but actually de-duplicated the ballots (meaning the results stand) or Maricopa did not de-duplicate the mail-in envelopes and the results are impossible to validate because some 17,000 duplicate votes were cast.

2. Maricopa lied about their election management system never being connected to the Internet.  It has been conclusively and forensically established that indeed it was.  When it was is immaterial; the lie, standing alone, is enough.

3. Maricopa intentionally violated federal law in the maintenance of electronic records specifically including the chain of custody by not issuing individual login credentials to the authorized users for each function.  This is a direct violation of federal law and it was an intentional act.  These are laws, not suggestions.

4.  One or more people intentionally destroyed security logs.  At least one such person has been positively identified.  That is a criminal act, standing alone, and must be prosecuted.

5. The databases were intentionally destroyed by one or more persons.  The person who did #4 either conspired with said person(s) who destroyed the databases, was the person who did so, or did so to cover up the act without knowing who committed the first act.  Whatever the facts on that linkage may be it was a deliberate, criminal act standing alone and must be prosecuted.

6. The so-called "auditors" hired by Maricopa are criminally incompetent or even worse, actively involved in the above.  They must be named and prosecuted.  Specifically, they failed to inspect the unallocated disk space on the EMS, a basic part of forensics as criminals often delete evidence of their activity.  Said material was still there, so had the "auditors" hired by Maricopa been competent they would have discovered it.

What was not proved was that Trump won.  But what was proved was that there is no honest assertion that can be made that either of the two Presidential candidates in serious contention won.  The margin of victory is within the margin of dispute and it has been proved that electronic records critical to validate what occurred throughout the election process were deliberately destroyed by persons(s) who had physical access to the systems in question, with at least one such person being allegedly identified by security camera footage.

There may well be more here -- but what's been discovered thus far and proved (and for which the evidence is now in the public domain) shows that:

1. The election in Maricopa County for federal offices, including President, was not conducted in accordance with Federal Law.

2. The results, based solely on the count of duplicated ballot envelopes (people who voted more than once), which exceeds the margin of victory for the Presidential Office, are not able to be confirmed since once duplicate ballots are removed from the envelopes it is impossible to identify them.  Maricopa county claimed no such duplicates exist.  We now know more than 17,000 in fact do exist and the envelopes still exist.  What we cannot prove one way or another is whether the ballots inside those envelopes were counted and, if only one was counted, which one was counted.  We thus have no way to know who won.

3. The persons running the election have made materially false statements on an intentional basis about the equipment never being connected to the Internet.

4. The persons running the election both deliberately destroyed data related to the election in direct violation of Federal Law and, as a separate and distinct offense, attempted to cover up that destruction and identification of the person who did so.  This act, standing alone, demonstrates intent to tamper with the election results.

5. The vast majority of said deliberately destroyed data was not recoverable and likely is not recoverable.

By forensic evidence, not presented and unrebutted, the outcome of the election in Arizona was falsely certified.

What's the remedy for this?

That's a separate debate -- but that this one county alone did in fact corrupt their election, did so intentionally, and did so in such a fashion that at this time it not possible to know what the result actually was is not subject to reasonable dispute.

Finally, not only was their forensic computer person credible he displayed exactly the process that I, as a person skilled in the art and who has performed computer forensics, would utilize.  I found no fault in his procedures, his process and analysis.  Not did I find him to make a single unproved assertion of fact.  This is exactly what a professional is supposed to do in this field.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)