The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Editorial]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
Make Me Move

Display list of topics

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
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.

2018-04-11 10:34 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 264 references
[Comments enabled]  

Cut the crap Zucker****er.

You know good and ******n well that one of the largest sources of data comes not from what is "shared" on Facebook but from all the other sites around the Internet that have Facebook "login" and "like" buttons and that you do not have to click or use them to be tracked and profiled.

You can reasonably give consent -- assuming you are fully and fairly informed as to the scope of intended use -- when you actually take some action for which you can rationally anticipate will include that information being given.  For example if you are on Facebook and actually share something then it is reasonable to assume that Facebook will use that information.

You cannot possibly give consent to the fact that you read The Market Ticker, and the specific article in question being read, being transmitted to Facebook because there is no way for you to know in advance that the buttons and login are there nor is there any way to opt out of such data snooping, collection and use.  It is for this reason that said buttons have been permanently removed from this site and will never return.

Not one jackass Senator and, it appears, not one boot-licking Representative, has or will bring this up nor threaten that black-eyed, drugged-appearing son-of-a-bitch sitting in front of the House Committee today on this point and yet it is the issue, standing tall among all others.

YOU CANNOT CONSENT TO THAT WHICH OCCURS BEFORE YOU ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW IT HAPPENED.

**** you Congress; you know good and ******n well this is the issue and you are intentionally ignoring it, as is the so-called "business media".  Every last one of you deserves to be hit by an asteroid right here, right now, and that rat bastard company's headquarters ought to take a refrigerator-sized rock from the heavens at 25,000 miles an hour right damn now.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-04-10 18:16 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 121 references
[Comments enabled]  

Read carefully:

MIAMI (AP) — Hundreds of students have walked out of their Miami high school to protest gun violence after four current or former classmates were shot off campus.

So let's make this clear:

1. The shootings had nothing to do with school.  It occurred over the weekend at an apartment complex.

2. It was probably gang or drug-related.  Most shootings of this sort are, and this specific apartment complex was tagged by AP as being in a neighborhood where such is common.  Indeed a plurality of all gun homicides are drug or gang-related -- not related to so-called "assault weapons", riles or schools at all.

3. One of the "students" (in a blue hoodie) appears to be smoking a jointwhich is not legal in this state and further isn't legal for an under-21 person in any state.  NEVER MIND THAT SINCE THE SHOOTING IS PROBABLY GANG OR DRUG RELATED THAT STUDENT IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT LEADS TO THE VIOLENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE -- FUELING THE ILLEGAL DRUG TRADE, THE GANGS THAT SUPPLY IT AND THUS THESE SHOOTINGS.

And finally, said students are demanding mass-murder, as I've explained in my previous post; for those who haven't viewed the video have a look here:

AGAIN, THIS IS THE QUESTION YOU MUST DEMAND THESE "STUDENTS", INCLUDING MR. TOKER AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO SUPPORTS THEIR POSITION, ANSWER:

IF YOU ARE AGAINST HOMICIDE WHY ARE YOU ADVOCATING FOR AND IN FACT INSISTING ON MILLIONS OF MURDERS -- SPECIFICALLY, THE MURDER OF EVERYONE WHO SAYS "NO" TO YOUR DEMAND TO VIOLATE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-04-09 08:06 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 528 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's really quite-simple folks.

Yes, it's 20 minutes.  Watch it.  Distribute it.  Then enforce it.

If companies want to back those who advocate for and declare they will commit millions of murders they need to be put out of business -- lawfully, through irrevocable boycotts.  Those who support or work for any organization or firm that lend support to those advocating for millions of murders need to become unemployed -- and permanently unemployable.  No exceptions, no ifs, no ands and no buts.

There are those who say that there's a "cold civil war" going on right now culturally.  Well, maybe.  But the people on the left are not arguing for a "cold" civil war -- they are advocating, supporting and declaring intent to commit mass-murder, in America, on the scale of Rwanda -- or even Nazi Germany.

If someone tells you repeatedly and to your face that they intend to murder you what is your response? Do you actually associate with and buy products from those who state they are willing and intend to commit millions of murders to achieve a political goal?

That's what all those who support banning or registering any sort of firearm in America are actually stating.  It is a fact that some percentage of Americans believe the words of the 2nd Amendment mean what they say: shall not be infringed.  We can have whatever debate you wish on what percentage of Americans believe this but I am absolutely certain of one thing: It's not zero.  If that figure is even 0.1% of the American population then a demand to ban any gun is a declaration of intent to murder 300,000 Americans to get what you want.  If it's 1% then that number is 3.3 million murders.  And if it's 3%? Then there are 10 million people who everyone that supports such a ban is stating they intend to murder simply because those individuals believe that the Constitution is not a dead letter and means exactly what it says.

Not a single one of the people arguing for "gun bans" or "gun registration" wants to actually reduce gun violence.  It is an outrageous fraud to claim you're "against gun violence" when the actual position you are taking is that you're willing to murder millions of Americans to obtain a political goal.

That this declaration has not resulting in an immediate shooting war -- a civil war on our own soil -- is simply because with the exception of the criminally insane a simple declaration of intent to murder millions doesn't contain enough credibility for people to take it seriously.

It is a grave error to believe that this will continue beyond the point that the first people are actually murdered in furtherance of that declaration of intent.  It is a further grave error, and one that can easily lead to an actual civil war with millions of Americans lying dead on both sides of the debate, for you to fail to point this fact out every time you hear such a phrase as "common sense" gun restrictions and take corrective action to demand that those who have and do adopt such positions declare their true intent in public -- that is, to force them to publicly admit their intention to murder all who disagree while accepting the social, economic and political consequences of doing so.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-04-09 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 128 references
[Comments enabled]  

When I started MCSNet we did not have Section 230 of the CDA.  It was passed in 1996 with the goal, amusingly, of restricting free speech.

Those parts were ultimately struck down as unconstitutional (go figure) but Section 230 remains.

Section 230 was well-intentioned -- but has been massively abused and, I argue, intentionally so.

The problem is that Section 230 can shield people for knowingly allowing illegal things to pass.  We're not talking about negligence here -- we're talking about direct knowledge of actual criminal conduct.

If I take a box to UPS and ship it, and it happens to have child pornography in it, UPS is not responsible.  That's reasonable; to demand otherwise would be to demand that UPS open and inspect every package, and then if there was something that might be illegal they'd have to do whatever was necessary to find out.  That's outrageous, which is why it doesn't work like that.

But, if UPS accepts from me a box on which I've written, on the outside, "Contents: Child Pornography" then the situation changes.  Now they have actual knowledge that there almost-certainly is, indeed, something very illegal in the box.  Ditto if the box is labeled "Bomb", for example.

Section 230 has been "liberally interpreted", however, to shield those with actual knowledge.  Not a reasonable suspicion or even probable cause -- actual knowledge.

Recently Congress passed a law to change this -- at least for human trafficking.  But the seizure of Backpage was undertaken under existing law, which means that perhaps -- just perhaps -- the DOJ has finally pulled its head out of its ass and drawn the perfectly-reasonable legal distinction between expecting someone to investigate and draw a judgement and outrageously blatant, in-your-face criminal acts where the operators in question did not just suspect they actually knew not only that the conduct was going on but also that it was black-letter illegal without any lawful explanation.

The indictment, which is reported to contain 93 counts, is as of this publication sealed -- but word on the street is that it contains allegations of sex trafficking -- that is, not willing prostitution by individuals but rather the sort of sexual slavery and human trafficking that ought to shock anyone with a conscience.

If the allegations made -- that the company not only knew what it was charging money for was illegal it also attempted to conceal it both through machine alteration of content and human involvement then one would hope they couldn't hide behind Section 230 -- amended or not.

We shall see.

Update: Uh, yeah.  Lock 'em up Danno, assuming these allegations prove up.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2018-04-08 19:19 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 162 references
[Comments enabled]  

Ha Ha, made you look.

"New high-speed Florida train kills 4th person since launching service"

Note: Faux Snooz claims the train killed the person.  It committed an act of independent thinking and has now killed four times!

This is exactly the sort of stupidity I expect from the media.

A train cannot kill anyone.  A person can step in front of it, either accidentally or intentionally, and get run over by said train, but the train will occupy the same space at that time whether a person is there or not.

Now compare with "the gun shot someone."

No, the gun did not shoot anyone.  A person shot someone; the tool used by the person was a gun.

Similarly, the train did not kill anyone as "kill" is an verb -- an action.  Trains are incapable of actions as they are inanimate objects and in the case of trains in particular the person or machine controlling them cannot do much about their speed and location quickly because the accumulated momentum prohibits that due to the laws of physics.

So a correct headline would be "Stupid person walks in front of oncoming train and is run over."

But that doesn't sell newspapers, or web clicks.

Just like "Insane individual murders three" doesn't either.

PS: That's not a "high speed" train either; if you want to see one go to Japan or, for that matter, the TGV.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)