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.


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.

2021-05-06 08:52 by Karl Denninger
in Musings , 479 references
[Comments enabled]  

So one third of Basecamp workers quit because they couldn't be "woke" on company time and get paid for it?

About one-third of employees at software company Basecamp quit days after bosses told them to keep ideology out of the workplace and focus on the company’s actual business.

“We make project management, team communication, and email software,” CEO Jason Fried wrote April 26. We don’t have to solve deep social problems, chime in publicly whenever the world requests our opinion on the major issues of the day, or get behind one movement or another with time or treasure. These are all important topics, but they’re not our topics at work.”


That's exactly correct of Jason Fried, and if the staff doesn't like it then quitting means no unemployment for you, and those people can go take their anchors with which they destroy their productivity somewhere else.

When I ran MCSNet we had a very simple policy: You're here to advance the interests of the company.  You do not set policy as an employee, you follow it.  If you have a problem with this then the door is right over there and you're welcome to use it -- once.

I was presented with all manner of outside demands for this accommodation or that on various issues all the time.  This group or that thought they should have some sort of "special recognition", whether it be gay people, Christians, or whatever.  My answer to all of them was the same: No.

The reason was simple: Extortion never ends once you say yes.

MCSNet was not a political organization, it was a business.  It existed for the purpose of delivering services to people in a voluntary exchange of said goods and services for money.  I recognized only one form of discrimination -- green.  If you desired to voluntarily exchange green pieces of paper with dead Presidents images printed on them or their electronic equivalent you were a customer, and if not you were not a customer.  Our goal was singular: To attempt to convince you that the bargain we offered was superior to that of the other competitors in the marketplace.

That's it.

If I believed there was an advertising campaign available that I could target at some group of people that argued we were the better choice on that basis then I'd do so -- and did, repeatedly.  We had employees of all shapes, sizes, colors and preferences.  As with my view of what the firm did my firm on employees was the same: You are here to provide a service to the company in exchange for money and no other reason.  I do not care what you do outside of work but whatever advocacy and other activities you wish to engage in they stop at the door in both directions; you may neither bring them in here or bring your professional association with the company out there.

There was exactly one person authorized to speak on behalf of the company: Me.

If you want to engage in political activity, no matter the issue, do it on your own time and without any affiliation connected to your employment.  Do it otherwise and you're out.  Period.

Bravo Basecamp.

PS: Oops.  Perhaps not so much on the bravo.  They apparently have now reversed course and "apologized."  Just file bankruptcy now Basecamp; you're done.  You've now cooked your own goose from both ends and are finished; it is merely a matter of time.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-05-06 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 401 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's about darn time.

The court ruled that the CDC's "Eviction Moratorium" was unlawful and vacated it nationally.

There have been other challenged to this, which led to only single relief -- that is, the one tenant in question wound up getting the "pay up or get out" notice, but those judges did not extend it nationally.  This one did.

On the clear language the CDC never had this authority in the first place.  Further, even if Congress was to do so explicitly (which they did not) it still fails because you are taking both possession and money from the landlord without compensation, which is private property and thus under the 5th Amendment impermissible.

This judge never got to the second point because he didn't have to.

The bottom line is that the free ride is over.  This is a good decision and needed to happen a long time ago for the good of those who rent their residence.

It has become nearly impossible to find reasonable rental property -- that is, not wildly deficient in some way -- during Covid as a result of this moratorium.  Literally anyone can move into such a place and then claim inability to pay due to the pandemic, and screw the landlord.  There's no defense against this except for requiring a ridiculously large up-front deposit, which most renters do not have.  Further, the premise this is a "suspension" is worthless; yes, in theory when it ends the renter has to pay the back rent but virtually none of them have it and most people who rent don't have much in the way of assets either, so suing them is a pointless exercise.

The landlord, in the meantime, must keep up maintenance, repairs, any utilities that were built into the rent and pay property taxes, without which he's breaking the law or may have the place seized by the county.  Essentially the landlord is paying the tenant to stay there; there is no free lunch, and those funds were taken from the landlord at literal gunpoint.

I'm sure Biden's people will appeal but any appeal just makes the problem worse, as what was originally a few months has now extended over a year, and that year's time is a full year worth of rent which is still due to the landlord but nearly zero tenant have it, having consumed the funds for other things -- including, I'm sure in many cases, lots of booze and weed.

It's time to draw the curtain down on this scam; it was months ago, really, in that some judge, somewhere, should have taken a sledge to the CDC's pee-pee on their order all the way back to last summer.  The economic damage to the rental housing market has been immense, but the worst victims are in fact those who rent residences as landlords no longer have even the de-minimus expectation at present that if you don't pay they can go to court and evict you.

Those who are not slimeballs have been severely harmed by the CDC's action -- an action that was neither legal or constitutional.

The employees and families of those working for the CDC should be the ones forced to go live under a freeway overpass in the interests of justice.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-05-05 22:12 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 85 references


View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-05-05 22:04 by Karl Denninger
in Podcasts , 186 references
[Comments enabled]  

Why aren't we having the conversation about the right thing here?

I choose, my responsibility.  End to end, no escape.

You choose, your responsibility.

Is it really that complicated?

I don't think so!

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2021-05-05 14:41 by Karl Denninger
in Flash , 678 references
[Comments enabled]  

Gee, look what I said a hell of a long time ago and now....

Median age was 60 years (range 18-96). Patients with critical disease (n=106) had significantly lower levels of anti-HCoV OC43 nucleocapsid protein (NP)-specific antibodies compared to other COVID-19 inpatients (p=0.007). In multivariate analysis (adjusted for age, sex and BMI), OC43 negative inpatients had an increased risk of critical disease (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.68 [95% CI 1.09 - 7.05]), higher than the risk by increased age or BMI, and lower than the risk by male sex. 


There goes the whole game folks.

Get a cold, don't get killed by Covid-19.

Why not give people colds?  It's not like we're scared of those, right?

And as I noted a week or so prior the protection resides in the nucleocapsid recognition, not the spike, so all of the existing "Warp Speed" vaccines are pointed at 100% of the wrong thing.

Why not just get deliberately inoculated with OC43 -- and sneeze?

Now we know, and we also know why kids don't get seriously sick -- those other four coronaviruses circulate all the time and basically every kid gets them time and time again in childhood.

The game -- and fear -- is over.

There's no reason to take the significant risk from the shots either for virtually everyone.

You just have to look and you might have to sneeze.


View this entry with comments (opens new window)