The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Corruption]
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.

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.

2019-08-18 11:20 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 138 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is exactly what's wrong with so-called "criminal justice" today.

District Attorney Larry Krasner said when he initially told Hill he could be facing 25 years in prison, Hill tried to negotiate and "said 20" — to which Krasner agreed.

“We need to be clear here: This was bulls--- from the beginning,” Krasner told The Philadelphia Inquirer, describing the agreement as "phony baloney."

Krasner said Hill requested the agreement in writing — which the district attorney claimed he started, but never finished. He said the suspect's lawyer was in on the mock agreement.

Great.

So we have several things going on here, all of them catastrophically bad.

1. The defendant's lawyer violated several canons of law, including intentionally lying to the client.

2. The DA lied as well.

I get it -- that was a crap situation and the goal was to get the suspect out of the place in one piece, never mind all the other people trapped inside, both cops and other suspects in the drug bust, along with anyone in the immediate vicinity.

But -- the example now set and admitted to in public, which is a catastrophic piece of stupidity, is that all future suspects can not believe either the words of the head of the just-us department there (the DA) or their own lawyers.

This means that if one is in such a situation the only logical thing for said suspect to do is shoot and kill everyone you can and accept that you're already dead because whatever you're told is a lie.

Remember the basic foundation principle here folks: All after the first all the rest of the murders are free.

This is always true and can never be otherwise.  Anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size can figure this out.

Situations like the recent one in Philadelphia are some of the worst of "corner cases" around.  There are no good answers.  But we can make a bad situation much, much worse by destroying any vestigial element of credibility within the legal system both among prosecutors as proffered to suspects but even worse, between a suspect and their attorney.

The real issue in this instance which nobody will take responsibility for nor will the people of Philadelphia enforce said responsibility by whatever means are necessary are the utterly ridiculous number of nolle prosecuti charges -- that is, the intentional refusal to prosecute -- that this individual had in his record including many for felony crimes against other people.  The suspect would have been out in public as he would have been in prison and thus none of this would have happened.  Rather than admitting responsibility for his intentional act in this regard, screwing those victims, Larry lied and worse, entered into a conspiracy with the suspect's attorney to lie to said person as a means of covering up his own intentional, criminal malfeasance.

This action is going to get plenty of government employees killed, including police officers and there's nothing that can be done about it now.  Further, the people of the city, I'll bet, still won't hold this jackass accountable -- not now and not when the cops start taking fire on sight.  Instead we'll hear more whining about guns, never mind that all that will remain between you as a common citizen and death is now, from this day forward, a gun.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



2019-08-18 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 154 references
[Comments enabled]  

Why am I not surprised?

Dayton police said the gunman had cocaine, Xanax and alcohol among other substances in his system at the time of the mass shooting before police fatally shot him. Montgomery County Coroner Kent Harshbarger said that authorities also found a bag of cocaine on Connor Betts, 24.

Xanax is not an SSRI; it's a benzodiazeprine.

It is a drug of abuse especially in persons who are using or abusing other drugs.

While this class of drug is not associated specifically with the rage-monster risk that exists with SSRIs there remains a live issue when it comes to prescribing a drug like this (if indeed it was a prescription drug, and he wasn't abusing it on a "recreational" basis) to someone who his friend, who got busted for having a bong on his kitchen table along with a gun when the FBI came calling, said they had used drugs, including hard drugs, daily over an extended period of time.

What appears quite clear is that this guy was severely mentally compromised.  The problem is that the "Red Flag" screamfest won't do a damn thing, because if this guy can get (and did get, as he had with him) cocaine he can certainly get a gun on the black market as well.

As I've repeatedly pointed out the only real answer to these issues is that if you're too dangerous to be allowed to have a firearm you're too dangerous to be free on the street.  But we refuse to go down that road, which is the only just road to travel in this case, because (1) you must respect due process of law, and (2) when the authorities get this one wrong, and let someone out who they shouldn't, where the public should build a gallows and who they should hang from it is obvious.

Simply put the authorities refuse to take responsibility, just as happened in Philadelphia where the man accused of shooting six cops through his ceiling (who apparently were trying to execute a drug bust) had multiple serious felonies on his arrest record that were entered nole prosequi (in other words, they dropped the charges.)

Now this can happen, sometimes for good cause.  But a repeated record of this sort of thing when it comes to violent felonies is another matter.  There's simply no argument for that; this isn't a drug matter where the only persons involved were consenting adults.  Violent felonies have a victim.

Of course now the US "Attorney" has weighed in:

The alleged shooter last night, Maurice Hill, is a previously convicted felon with a long rap sheet.  We have plenty of criminal laws in this City – but what we don’t have is robust enforcement by the District Attorney.  Instead, among other things, we have diversionary programs for gun offenses, the routine downgrading of charges for violent crime, and entire sections of the criminal code that are ignored. 

Oh you mean like 15 USC Chapter 1, which is a federal (not state) law and which you, **********, have refused to issue one single indictment under against one medical or drug provider in your jurisdiction despite virtually every one violating that law and screwing the population in your district out of tens if not hundreds of billions a year?

Heh, he's outraged I tell you outraged -- that one felon got to commit a lot of felonies and didn't get busted.  That's nice.  The hospital where all those cops went?  I bet it commits 100+ felonies under 15 USC Chapter 1 a day and unlike drug possession, which has only a self-victim (that is, it's voluntary and it's the person with the drugs) these felonies have unwilling victims -- the people generally who get individually and collectively screwed.  How many of those have been prosecuted?  One dude with a gun, lots of crimes, bad.  One building full of dudes with a bunch of drugs, scalpels and other implements committing more crimes a day than this jackwad committed his entire life, robbing everyone in America to the tune of $25 a day, every single day, or roughly $10,000 a year per citizen and it's all good because it's just "the little guy" -- not the "boys in blue" -- who get ****ed!

But back to the central point here -- mass-shootings.

If you want to actually make a dent in these sorts of events you have to hold the authorities accountable when they fail to do their job.  Further, the only means to stop someone dangerous from committing mass-murder is to lock them up.  If you can demonstrate within the boundaries of due process that such danger exists at a level sufficient to remove someone's freedom then do exactly that -- whether it's involuntary commitment due to mental defect or imprisonment due to violent felony.

All other so-called "remedies" will do exactly nothing when it comes to violent jackwads and will make the people less safe since the criminal -- or criminally-insane -- does not care what the law says, while those who are not criminals are denied the fundamental human right to self-defense.

That's unacceptable and will not be allowed to stand.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

It's quite clear by now folks....

The bank informed Mr. Einaudi that it was closing all 13 of the checking accounts it provided his roofing company, CRV Construction, for a reason it called “confidential.” The letter said the accounts would be closed on June 27, and he would be mailed a check for the balance in his accounts.

Mr. Einaudi went to his branch and collected the money, so he did not have to wait for a check to arrive in the mail. But the accounts did not close on the preset date.

For weeks after the date the bank said the accounts would be closed, it kept some of them active. Payments to his insurer, to Google for online advertising and to a provider of project management software were paid out of the empty accounts in July. Each time, the bank charged Mr. Einaudi a $35 overdraft fee.

They closed the accounts.  Proof of this is that they handed him a check for the balance.

Note that Wells originated the closure.  He didn't ask for it, they did it unsolicited.

But they didn't actually close them -- they kept processing payments out of them and banged him for overdraft fees.

This is fraud.

It is a crime.

Yet our government, despite myriad such abuses by this individual company, has failed to bring one criminal charge.

Not one.

Then there's this Twitter thread documenting the fisting that drug firms give Americans.

It is illegal to monopolize, restrain trade or fix prices.  It was made illegal more than 100 years ago.  It is not just civilly illegal (that is, fines) either -- it is a criminal felony carrying 10 years in prison for each person involved.  That's approximately what you'd get for dealing narcotics, possessing a firearm as a felon or having an illegal machine gun.

It's a serious crime.  Go read the law yourself.

And, it's one that despite the pharmaceutical and insurance businesses claiming they were immune from same the Supreme Court said they were not and that these laws applied decades ago (Group Life & Health .v. Royal Drug, 1979.)

Have there been any prosecutions and prison sentences for drug company executives since?

No.

None.

These are just two of more examples than I can count with the only common thread between them being that if you're a large corporation (and in many cases an elected or appointed official -- witness Eric Holder w/Fast-n-Furious) you can do whatever the hell you want, law be damned.  If you're an individual of ordinary means and stature you follow all the laws or go to prison.

So it's quite clear to this ordinary citizen that only one of two things will stop the repeated, daily financial rape of the American people.

1. The government starts enforcing the law against these firms -- including especially large firms.  Not with fines but with prison time and revoked federal business charters, such as in the case of banks.  This is not a suggestion -- it is in fact a requirement of every President who, among other things, promises to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States.  Not just against "little people", against everyone including large corporations and big company executives.

OR

2. The people, having determined that the government will not enforce the law, decide to do so on their own by whatever means are necessary and available to them and further take whatever actions are necessary to prevent the government from stopping such enforcement, up to and including telling said government to screw goats in all respects.

It's the people's choice folks.  #1 is of course the correct choice that remains peaceful and lawful but if the government will not do so despite its clear obligation then the only way it is going to stop is when we, the people, determine that it will stop and that if we cannot obtain recourse through the government enforcing the law we will do it ourselves whether the government likes it or not -- and if the government tries to stop the people from doing so we will stop the government much as the Colonists did the British.

The only other alternative is to consent to the continued financial fisting that these firms apply to us each and every day.

What will it be folks?

Have you decided it's sex, that is, you consent -- in which case y'all need to shut the **** up on Twatter, in the media and everywhere else -- or is it in fact******and are you've had enough of it?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-08-14 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 414 references
[Comments enabled]  

We're rapidly getting there folks.....

The FBI formally documented the apparent anti-Trump bias of British ex-spy Christopher Steele shortly after the November 2016 presidential election -- yet despite the red flags, continued to use his unverified dossier in multiple Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant application renewals, records obtained by Fox News show.

The partially redacted documents, first obtained by Judicial Watch, also revealed that top Justice Department official Bruce Ohr maintained contact with Steele for at least six months after Steele was fired by the FBI for unauthorized media contacts in November 2016. The records further confirmed that Ohr knew of Steele's anti-Trump bias before the 2016 election.

In other words the FBI knew, factually that their FISA surveillance application was fraudulent.

They didn't think it might be, they knew it was from inception.

It has long been argued that the renewals were perjured, but this is now proof that the original application was a perjured, false document fed to a judge with the explicit intent to mislead him into believing that the information presented was true and that there was a legitimate and reasonable belief that an investigation was warranted.

We now know this was false; the FBI knew prior to the first application for a FISA surveillance warrant that Bruce Ohr knew that the dossier on which said application was largely based was politically motivated and desperate that Donald Trump lose the election.

Note that in addition a Senior State Department Official specifically pointed out that she was aware that some of the claims Steele had made were apparently false.  Likely, give that this is the State Department, I would hazard a guess that involved alleged travel claims in the dossier which the State Department would know factually never happened since entry and exit (e.g. on what flight did you arrive or are you departing, etc) are logged in State Department computers by anyone holding a US Passport.

The FBI intentionally withheld this information from the court.

That is a criminal offense.  It further, given the context, constitutes an attempt to prevent a lawful election from taking place, which quite-arguably, since FBI agents are an armed part of the US Government is a seditious conspiracy, one of the most-serious criminal acts that one can be engaged in within the United States.

Not one indictment has issued against these people.

We do not have a Constitutional government folks; it has self-declared illegitimacy under our Constitution and rule of law.  Our alleged Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, Donald Trump, has done nothing about this.  Further, and at least as outrageous, the FISA judge(s) involved, despite now knowing this, have not themselves acted on their own initiative to demand, in public, that heads roll and prisons fill.  The entire FISA court system including everyone in it down the janitor thus was and remains part of this active event along with a good chunk of Congress, including but certainly not limited to Congressman Jerry Nadler.

What are we rapidly approaching?

When in the course of human events......

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-08-13 09:05 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 189 references
[Comments enabled]  

Humans are very good at evaluating certain things.

Put an image of two colors in front of 100 people and 99% of them will be able to tell you which is the darker shade of the two.  Essentially all humans, even the blind, can differentiate between a dog and a cat.  If something is very probable (e.g. "will it rain today") most humans can get pretty close to right, even with ridiculously-deficient information (e.g. no access to satellite, radar or surface weather maps.)

But humans are very, very poor at evaluating certain other things.  We're very bad, for example, at evaluating the risk of a nuclear accident resulting in our death by radiation poisoning.  Witness the screamfests after Fukushima all the way over here in America, yet the amount of contamination that reached our shores was, while measurable, a tiny fraction of natural background radiation.  Here in NW Florida, where I happen to have a recording geiger counter that tracks background levels and can read all three forms of radiation including alpha (many less-expensive units cannot read alpha particles) the change in background radiation level was a literal zero.

Humans, it turns out, are terrible at evaluating the true risk of highly improbable but catastrophic events.  We tend to evaluate them strictly on the level of catastrophe that could result and ignore the probability.  That is, a serious car accident will kill you and so will a serious nuclear contamination event (whether from a bomb or an accident of some sort.)  Since the nuclear accident, if it's severe enough, will kill more people we evaluate that as the more-serious danger by far, when in fact it's the other way around: Over 37,000 people are killed a year in the United States in motor vehicle wrecks of all sorts where the number killed by a nuclear release last year was a literal zero.

Indeed the number of acute radiation deaths in Japan from Fukushima to date has been zero.  However, about 600 people were killed during the evacuations from other causes -- in other words, the scaring of people managed to result in 600 fatalities.  Oh, and roughly 20,000 people were killed instantly by the tsunami itself, which of course has nothing to do with nuclear power.

But it gets worse.  In the wake of Fukushima Japan has shut down nearly all of its nuclear plant capacity.  Coal replaced a large amount of that.  Coal mining is quite dangerous and often kills the miners, but what's even worse is that thermal coal, that is, burning it for power, kills tens of thousands of people a year.  The irony is that nearly all of them die not from the particulate matter from burning coal itself but rather from a trace element, Thorium, that is found in coal naturally and is an alpha emitter.  While alpha emitters are safe to handle as unbroken skin stops alpha particles when inhaled it causes lung cancer.

So the Japanese shut down their nuclear plants which had killed zero people due to radiation and substituted coal-fired power which in turn kills people through radiation.  It just kills them one at a time on a continual basis over the space of a few decades instead of the possible, but highly improbable, risk of killing fewer people all at once.

There are a decent number of sociopaths and worse -- tyrants -- who know all of this.  They study human behavior.  They are well-aware that scaring people right into a trap that enslaves or even kills them is not very hard.  What's worse is that a lot of those scares can be structured to be very profitable and sold to the public as "good."  So-called "climate change" is one of these.  Not only is it extraordinarily unlikely that man is the cause of the changes in climate (natural cycles are in fact responsible) but even if human activity is responsible for it short of a genocidal war at a scale never contemplated in the history of the planet there's nothing we can do to stop it.  There is thus only one rational action to take, and that is to adapt to what may happen.  If sea levels do indeed rise by a few feet over the next 500 years you can quite-easily walk faster than the water rises, even if you're the sort of sedentary jackwad that weighs 600lbs and requires assistance to go take a dump.  In the decades or centuries over which this change will take place we can move and reconfigure agriculture to take advantage of the higher CO2 levels -- which increase plant growth rates -- rather than whine about it.  We can take those decades to build more electrical infrastructure with which we can power A/C units, so when you want to cool off you can come inside and do so.  And we'll gain a tremendous advantage in the wintertime as, not being as cold, the expenditure of fuel to heat homes and businesses will decline.  However, if the rich and powerful scare people they can make trillions of dollars between them by screwing you in myriad ways from new taxes to intentional destruction of your lifestyle, all of which you will comply with.

 The same sort of thing applies to "mass shootings."  The screaming is incessant about these while a literal Shootapalooza continues in Chicago.  Over the weekend to 10:00pm Sunday the 11th of August there were 42 people shot.  On the 4th of August alone there were more than 30 people shot.  The political screaming about this amounts to zero because there are no scary black rifles involved and you can't blame "white nationalism" as nearly all of the shooters (and their victims) are black or Hispanic.  Encouraging everyone to go armed all the time in Chicago would stop a huge percentage of these shootings (not even a thug likes the idea of being shot at) but if the shootings stopped the prison and police industries would be able to rob less money from the residents -- and taxes would go down.  That just won't do, so the shootings must continue.  Don't worry about that, you're told, it's just the black and brown people that get killed.  Right?

Having now thoroughly buried the lede let's get to the point: Our government, at the behest of corporations and powerful individuals, has been intentionally suppressing wages across the board and destroying your prosperity and wealth for the explicit purpose of allowing the rich and powerful to steal it from you using government force.

The obvious, blatant example is our wide-open border in which we claim to have (what's the point of having a Passport if there is no real border?) but never enforce.  We currently have some 20 million "undocumented" (illegal) invaders in our nation.  Every one of them consumes resource that does not belong to them.  They are here only because they think the opportunity here is better than there.  But how's that possible?  You can't work here legally unless you came here legally.  You can't have a bank account without a social security number.  You can't buy land without being here legally either, nor get a mortgage since both of those require bank involvement and that in turn requires proof of identity and a valid social security number.

How is this "superior" to where you came from?  It's not, unless the government refuses, on purpose, to enforce the law and the corporations and individuals that hire said persons intentionally break said laws.  Both take place for economic reasons.  But who does this hurt?  Those on the left side of the bell curve who are Americans and have their job prospects either diminished or destroyed.  These are the people who, due to lack of ability, education or both will never be rocket scientists -- but they can nail on roofs and pick strawberries.  The problem is that the law says that to do either you must be paid a certain wage, have certain benefits (including health insurance, incidentally, if the place employs a certain number of people) and have the right to a workplace free from unreasonable hazards (like falling off said roofs due to lack of proper harnesses and such.)  You must also be paid overtime for more than 40 hours of work in a week and have at least one 24 hour period of time off per week.  Of course an illegal invader brings none of those costs and as a result they are cheaper to employ, which is why they're employed.  In the meantime all of those citizens on the left side of the bell curve get screwed blind.

Over the last nearly 30 years, however, even that wasn't enough.  Our own National Science Foundation produced a rigged "study" that put forward the claim that we did not have "enough" high-tech workers.  These are people of high skill and education -- that is, they're all from the right side of the bell curve.  Corporations, of course, do not want to pay market prices -- they want to pay less.  The market is very good at allocating this sort of thing; if there are not enough computer programmers that will take a job at $50,000 a year the offered salary will rise until there are sufficient numbers of said people.  It may take a couple of years for the market to adjust to this but it will; there are more than enough smart citizens in the United States who either are in or can return to school and obtain the training necessary for that position.  Wages will rise, in other words, until the demand is met.

The same is true for physicians and other professions.

However, this is not what businesses want.  Not coincidentally it is also not what the government wants, because rapidly rising wages lead to "wage-push" inflation that cannot be hidden through lying in the consumer price index reports which means higher interest rates and that chokes off deficit spending immediately.

So the government actively conspired with business to suppress wages in high-skill jobs through creating and now expanding the H1b visa programs.  This effectively created indentured servants because an H1b visa is not transferable; that is, if you are here on one and working you can't take a job somewhere else for a higher salary as your visa is a pumpkin if you leave your present job and you're thus forced to leave America.

At the same time this has both utterly screwed Americans who have higher skills and abilities by suppressing the wages they would otherwise earn and at the same time enabled Washington's deficit spending by inhibiting the very-visible wage pressure that would have otherwise forced up interest rates.

Do you think this is all coincidence?

Of course it isn't.  I've always assumed it wasn't but, until that National Science Foundation "study" was unearthed couldn't prove it.  But now the proof is on the table; this was a deliberate act of wage suppression intended to hose high skilled and highly-able Americans taken in concert by both government and industry.

This isn't a "only hits the downtrodden, lazy people of color" problem that some would claim is that bastion of "white privilege."  It is in fact intentional and aimed at all ordinary citizens across the board, from the most-able to the least, whether white, Hispanic, black or Martian.  It was done intentionally, with malice aforethought and funded with our tax dollars.

The government, in short, declared war on its citizens, intending to impoverish nearly all for the benefit of a tiny few at the top with political connections and yet, thus far, we the people have been too stupid, to drunk or had our heads buried too far into a smartphone to realize this, rise up and throw their asses out and lock the **********s up, one way or another.

Can you guess why both sides of the aisle will "compromise" on more "gun control", having highlighted only certain shootings that fit the sort of weapons you might want to stop such abuses?  The gang-bangers don't give a damn about the law but it's sure convenient for those in power to limit firearms for those who aren't gang-bangers as they're screwing you in the ass, isn't it?  Let's be real here -- if you're a rapist, financial or otherwise, would you prefer an armed or unarmed victim?

After all you might get tired of being financially raped on a daily basis, decide you're not going to put up with that anymore and that maybe -- just maybe -- you'd like to be able to underline your demand that it stop.

Now let me guess -- having read this you'll go grab a beer, screw your girl or boyfriend, and then go right back to sleep.

You may not care about politics but that won't stop the politicians and business people from screwing you blind.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)