The Market Ticker - Cancelled
What 'They' Don't Want Published- Category [Musings]
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.


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.

2022-05-08 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Musings , 759 references
[Comments enabled]  

Oh, the bleating has started over at CNN....

Private companies, then, should make a choice: Do they want to invest and operate in states where half of the workforce cannot make their own choices about whether and when to have children -- choices that, from a pure business perspective, fundamentally alter a company's ability to retain talent and a cohesive, healthy staff? Or do they want to take steps to protect their employees -- and take their business to states where women are freer?

Or do firms let the marketplace of ideas work, and, where people like this author "win" in that firms leave, let the remaining ones have whatever competitive disadvantage -- or advantages, as the case may be, continue onward.

What, you say "advantages"?


You see, its illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex in employment.  This is interpreted to mean that an employer may not take into account the materially higher cost, for example, of health insurance on a woman of childbearing age, nor may the employer take into account that a woman who is young and doesn't have kids might want them and thus will take time off to have them at a time of her choosing.

Both are real.  Prior to Obamacare when health "insurance" (in quotes because its not insurance, legally-speaking) companies set premiums entirely based on actuarial losses women were always more expensive to cover than men.  Whether its because women complain more (and thus go to the doctor where men don't) or whether its due to actual health being more-fragile if you're female I don't know -- but I can tell you, as someone who wrote that check as a CEO every month to those firms women were more expensive.

That a woman may choose to have a child of course, if she's of childbearing age is a very real risk and FMLA makes it a legal obligation for most firms to provide for it and hold that job open at the employer's expense never mind that if you don't promote a young woman on this basis you will get sued (and likely lose too) -- but, while in theory that law is sex-neutral in point of fact it is not, ever, simply because of biology.  Men can't gestate no matter how many Reeeeing idiots say otherwise and irrespective of your "pregnant man" emoji -- and every employer and indeed every sane person over the age of about three knows it.

Indeed given this is Mother's Day let's shove in the face of the crazies that not every mother gestates (you can adopt and be a mother, for example) but every single mother is in fact a biological woman no matter how many screws you have loose upstairs.

So let's let the 50 state laboratories play out, shall we?

I'm not at all sure how this resolves, honestly.  Without actually doing it there's no way to know.

Of course the Reeeeing side is absolutely sure that women are on balance superior to men, even though that assertion is sexist on its own and, in any rational society, would get you hammered exactly as would the opposite assertion particularly when there is in fact law that makes discrimination on the basis of sex illegal.

After all if discrimination is illegal and one must pay the same wage for the same work then the person who shows up more often and does more work should make more money irrespective of what happens to be between their legs or on their chest.  If you actually attempt to implement that in as an employer you will be sued and lose, however, and the politicians always lie about this every year on cue -- "wimmens are paid less than men!"

Oh really?  Where are the businesses that hire specifically and only on merit and productive output -- and are bending their competitors over the table and having a screwfest at their expense which would be trivial if this was true.  If you think I wouldn't have instantly exploited someone other shlub's stupidity in refusing to hire a superior workforce I assure you that you're wrong.

This was the reason, incidentally, that I have always found such "laws" to be either stupid or worse, intended to force mediocrity so virtue-signaling firms don't get hammered.  If "diversity" (on whatever basis) was strength and a net positive you'd be wild-eyed crazy not to maximize it because someone else in your market would and that would be the end of your company.  Only by forcing others to do as you do can you prevent that from happening.  Think about that for a minute because its rather obvious -- if you're capable of thinking, that is.

We may be about to get a real test of this theory.

What happens if those firms that believe in the "feelz" of abortion on demand being in fact nothing other than nakedly oppressing women all flee Texas?  What's left are competitors who don't believe in the "feelz."  There are fewer women employees in such firms on a percentage basis, simply because fewer present themselves to work as the rest have fled and a larger percentage of women in said state stay home and raise kids.  The women who present requesting employment have no interest in bearing or raising kids and are wildly-successful employees.  In addition the men who present themselves for employment are, on balance, more-likely to have all their "household stuff" (including kids) being taken care of by a wife who they love and who loves them -- and thus a higher percentage of their brainpower can be dedicated to their job.  No discrimination takes place; this is all from natural economic forces and personal choice to live in such a state -- or not.

What happens if, should that occur, the Texas firms are more-competitive in that their costs are LOWER, their employees are more productive and thus they hammer the feeelz-patrol companies over the head, drive them into the dirt and then assault their corporate corpses?

Do I expect this?  I don't know what the outcome will be since it hasn't been legal to do something like that for so long nobody alive has any real experience with doing it; the very point of 50 state laboratories is good ideas win and poor ones lose, which can only happen if there is a diversity of ideas and the free capacity of people to implement them whether the outcome be for good or bad.

That very experiment and allowing the market to determine who's right is what America was founded on, and it's a good thing -- not a bad one.  Indeed it is likely to answer the question as to whether so-called "diversity" initiatives are in fact worth anything or whether they are, as some have asserted, deliberately destructive because if they weren't everyone would have undertaken them on their own for purely economic reasons.

I say bring on the experiment and may the most-competitive ideas -- and States -- win.

Perhaps, just perhaps, what the Reeeeeeing left fears (maybe because they already are pretty-sure what the outcome will be) is that the acronym "DIE" will, well.... die.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2022-05-07 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Musings , 712 references
[Comments enabled]  

..... abortion, like so many other things in alleged public-policy, is about so much more than the act?

What if the knowledge that if you get pregnant, or get someone pregnant, you now have at least gestation, childbirth and a child (whether you put same up for adoption or raise the kid) to deal with -- like it or not?  Would this deter sex among young people not intending children?  It did for me, and millions of others who were teens when chemical birth control was not available to minors and of course condoms do fail.

What if that decrease in teen sex means many, many fewer teen pregnancies in the first place?

What if that decrease means fewer young women carry the psychological burden of knowing that they could have had a child -- and didn't -- because they destroyed what was going to become their born child?

What if that decrease materially improves, on a societal basis, the mental health of said women?

What if the decrease in sexual activity among teen boys and young men means they're more-able to form permanent bonds with women because they treat sex more-closely to what completely-unprotected sexual intercourse actually is -- both the greatest power and greatest responsibility two human beings can express, complete with an always-present risk of both good and bad outcomes?

What if that improvement means more children are ultimately born to two-parent, stable family homes -- and divorce falls?

What if that improvement in turn radically cuts child poverty, gang membership and the dealing of drugs?

What if that improvement means fewer young men, especially young black men, both shoot other black men and get shot?

What if the improvement in both economic and social outcomes is largest among racial minorities, particularly blacks?

What if all of this means more men and women, in said stable, two-parent homes decide that one of them will raise the kids and the other will go work and earn enough money to keep the family stable?

What if that shift means the big, expensive blue areas become unattractive since that simply doesn't pencil out?

What if since one parent is at home raising the kids now homeschooling becomes much more-reasonable and the blue-hive and even red-area teacher's unions find themselves either being forced to stop teaching six year olds about sex or they find themselves with an empty classroom and out of work as their budgets are decimated by the loss of pupils?

What if the reason companies are now popping up saying they'll pay for travel to states where you can get an abortion if Roe is struck has nothing to do with "respecting women" at all and everything to with treating women as farm animals, deliberately goading them into abortion so they don't have to pay for maternity leave and lose employees who decide some -- or all -- of their energy is best spent on their baby instead of being a slave to the company?

Is any or all of this wild-eyed crazy?  No.

But none of it is known or proved either.

It's just a possibility -- a possibility that has been foreclosed on purpose by the so-called "social structure" we've had for the last 50 years.

Exactly how interconnected all this really is in terms of outcomes is not known because we've always assumed abortion is a one-dimensional thing and that the definition of the boundaries isn't even that set forward by Roe -- oh no, that wasn't far enough, was it?

It's not a one-dimensional thing.

I know for a fact that it isn't.

I know it isn't because when I was a teen there were many times I said "No" to sex because I knew the only protection I had against her getting pregnant was a condom, and while they work the odds are what the odds are -- they're not good enough standing alone.  That's not to say I didn't have sex.  I did have sex.  But I had a lot less sex than I would have otherwise.

Many times I said "No" because of that risk; if there had been no risk I would have said "Yes" a lot more, and that's a fact.

Today any girl who wants chemical birth control can have it without her parents knowing she is getting it.  Today, any girl who wants an abortion can get one and in most states her parents do not have to be informed or give consent.  Today, the "state of play" that I and everyone else had in my younger years in college where we're all adults, we're over 18, we can go to the health center and get whatever since its nobody business but ours extends to twelve year old kids yet the costs of same are never theirs; they are thrown off on their parents or society generally by force.

If you think this doesn't change how boys -- not just girls -- look at the risks and rewards you're dead wrong.  It most-certainly does.

If there are 50 state laboratories in a few years, certainly within a decade we will see if any of the possible good things -- or some bad ones -- come to pass.  We'll have multiple different states, different sets of rules and different outcomes.

The evidence will rapidly accumulate as to who was right -- and who was wrong.

I'm sure there will be both good and bad on both sides.  There's plenty of both now from what we've done over the last 50 years, so why would one expect that the same won't occur here?

Only one side of this debate, however, is scared of that happening -- aren't they?

And if you think it ends there wait until you you read about what I think is going on with the employers and what they are actually afraid of.  It's not just paying for maternity leave.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2022-05-03 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Musings , 596 references
[Comments enabled]  

.... without even an attempt to cite the constitutional basis for being created, should cause the people to contemplate whether the agreement we have in this nation -- known as the Constitution -- is as void as was that with England in 1776.

I speak of this "Ministry of Truth" nonsense currently being put forward.

I will remind you that the head of DHS was challenged the other day in Congress to enumerate any so-called "white supremacist" or even any "domestic" investigation that they had done which led to a criminal referral.

He couldn't cite even one such instance.

Mayorkas can claim whatever he wants as to "who this new board" will monitor, but it matters not.

The very attempt to "police" that which the government claims is "false" is unconstitutional and therefore illegal, and any such act violates not only the First Amendment but also 42 USC 1983 which provides no exception for any member of the government and in fact is directly alimed at officials of the government.

Never mind that the government currently demands you buy someone's propaganda.  Our HHS secretary, for example, Levine, is a man.  A man who wishes he was a woman, but irrespective of said wish that person is a man, was a man at the moment of conception and nothing that said person can do will change that.  This is a biological fact and thus the claim that one is misgendering said person is flat-out bull**** never mind that nobody has any right to demand that you call them anything they demand whatsoever; you're perfectly free to use the word "*******", for example, as someone's pronoun if you'd wish in America -- so says the First Amendment.

This "board" is a-priori illegal, unconstitutional and since Mayorkas in fact serves at the pleasure of the President who has not removed him -- which he certainly could immediately do, and make clear that this is unacceptable then the same liability attaches to the entire Executive including the President himself.

When in the course of human events should be first and foremost on your minds about right now, my friends.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2022-04-26 16:11 by Karl Denninger
in Musings , 556 references
[Comments enabled]  

Rumor on some of the wires is that Russian gas is being shut down going to Europe -- not just Poland -- starting tomorrow.

Good luck with that folks.

I've long pointed out that its really stupid to become reliant on other nations -- especially those that don't have a form and fashion of government that respect the same human rights you do in approximately the same fashion.

Such as, for example, basically all of Europe when it comes to Russian natural gas, agricultural products and supplies (e.g. fertilizer) and similar, and the United States when it comes to China since China has about 1/6th of their landmass full of people they consider suitable for organ harvesting.

But, you see, it was all done because it was a convenient part of a card trick.  Print credit up, rely on the trade balance sequestering it so inflation doesn't skyrocket, and gee, who's the wiser?

Then Russia decides they've had enough of our and Ukraine's crap and justified or not there goes the "friends" who never really were.

Europe gets monkey-hammered with all the sequestered inflation and can't run their factories, heat their homes and power their lights.

What are we (and everyone else reliant on China) going to get when that ruptures too?

Because it will.

Do the people in DC recognize any of this?  Has Congress dealt with any of it?  Not only have they refused to they want to let every third-world unskilled person in which will drive demand for even more government spending except this time there's no trade sequestration to hide the inflationary impact of it, so you get it in every hole you have all at once, right now.

Do stupid things, get stupid prizes, as I've been pointing out on the economic side of this for more than a decade right here in this column.


View this entry with comments (opens new window)