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

2022-06-25 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 797 references
[Comments enabled]  

We're about to find out if all the bleating about a Constitutional Republic -- and the entire basis for not choosing to simply take whatever you want from whoever might have it, by whatever means you need to use (up to and including killing them) means anything or not.

The Supreme Court has issued two opinions of note that define quite-clearly that there are limits on what the Government can enact, and those limits in our Constitution are binding.

The first, striking down NY's (and several other) laws requiring you must show an extraordinary reason to have available a weapon for self-defense beyond the confines of your own home was blindingly unconstitutional a century ago when the "law" was enacted.  Nonetheless it took a century for the Supremes to tell NY to stick it up their ass.  The ruling goes nowhere near far enough in that rights do not require permission slips to exercise, and only when proved to be misused in an assault against another may they be constrained.  You have a right to free speech but if you blast your speech through a megaphone at someone else's house at 3:00 AM you can be compelled to stop.  The same speech, delivered by the same megaphone, on a busy public sidewalk is perfectly legal and, if you don't like it, that's just tough crap.

The 2nd Amendment is about protecting one's life, liberty and property from those who would take it by violence.  Yes, that means if government goons come to take same by violence in direct contravention to your natural rights you can shoot them.  If you don't think so then you live in a nation that has no right to exist and thus none of your alleged Constitutional protections exist either because America is here for the precise reason that the colonists shot the British when they came to take their property -- specifically, their guns and ammunition.  Whether there is one nutjob with a gun or a hundred of them wearing magic costumes is immaterial; it is the act itself you have the right to defend yourself against irrespective of who's committing it.

The cognitive dissonance within the left and our so-called "ruling class" on this point is ridiculous. Not one politician has a right to obtain or remain in office if they do not uphold this fact, for the entire political structure upon which their office rests is void if, in fact, they do not acknowledge and agree that such a right exists -- and existed before the United States did.  Since said right vests in the people and the government never had it there is no capacity to lawfully interfere with same since to grant or withhold something you must first have rightful possession of it.

That's the beginning and end of it.

The 6-3 Dobbs ruling, which overturned Roe (and which should not be a surprise given it was leaked in a puerile and outrageous attempt to derail same) likewise is not what the left says it is, nor is it what the right says it is.  While Roe certainly did attempt to draw upon an alleged right to privacy and bodily autonomy we just spent the last two years destroying both and not one single government official was hanged, shot, run out of town or set on fire for doing it, so those of you who argue that is the premise on which Roe rested and that you "respect" such can fuck off.  Indeed the same diffuse "public benefit" argument is more applicable to an unborn child in that without children there is no society at all, yet just as with so-called "public health" arguments the benefit to any particular person is diffuse and impossible to prove in advance.  The fact that the so-called left didn't immediately sack every political agency and politician who locked down the country, enforced mask mandates and passed or supported jab requirements proved that they have no principles behind their position at all and never did -- it was and is baseless and indefensible authoritarian crap that drove all of it.  I was once a fairly staunch defender of the original split in Roe, but the last two years have proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that there never was an honest position taken on the other side.

In point of fact those on the left in regard to this issue are no better than the British soldiers who tried to confiscate guns at Concord and thus have no right to any of the Constitution's protections themselves since they have explicitly repudiated said Constitution upon which the entirety of their claim to office and alleged "power", such as it is, rests.

Indeed all the caterwauling about "assigned sex at birth" (coming from these same people, incidentally) is just more bullshit piled upon bullshit.  We know, with absolute certainty and have since microscopes were invented when life begins and when the immutable characteristics of said life become fixed.  That event occurs in every sexually-reproducing organism down to the lowliest sexed plant when the male and female gametes fuse and there is not a thing you can do beyond that instant in time to change it.

Thus what isn't subject to debate by any honest person is when distinct life exists.  What is subject to debate is when and under what circumstances does life acquire Constitutional protection?  You can put down your dog, cat, cow or chicken irrespective of its state of birth or age.  None of that matters and other than by unreasonable cruelty there is no crime involved in killing any of them.  We assign by dint of political process superior and in fact distinct and unique rights to the species of animal called Homo Sapiens.  The species rhesus macaque, on the other hand, despite being both intelligent and a mammal, and thus quite close to Homo Sapiens from a biological perspective, can be killed and medically experimented on through any point in its existence from conception forward without criminal consequence.  Mus musculus can be fed to your pet snake while alive, or you can let your cat play with (and eat) one and all is well.

The premise that one person has the right to kill another distinct Homo Sapiens entity that has not yet been born (the 14th Amendment specifically attaches said protections at birth) yet any other person who does so is charged with murder (if intended) or manslaughter (if through negligence) and prosecuted is a political question.  Indeed our modern society has wildly divergent views on this; in some jurisdictions a woman who is pregnant and smokes meth, resulting in harm to or death of the fetus can be criminally charged while in others she will not be.  That is a political debate, not one of fact, since it is fact that at the moment of conception a distinct Homo Sapiens entity exists and the actual debate thus isn't about life -- it is about when and under what circumstances said life acquires the pre-government rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all three of which are protected and allegedly recognized (but not granted) by the Constitution and, under its present language (14th Amendment again), said attachment occurs at birth.

The entire premise of the 50 States, rather than one country with no division of power is that serious questions of this sort frequently do not have fact-based answers.  They have political answers, and diversity of political opinion and expression means that over time the better proposed answers will show superior outcomes while the lesser ones will show worse outcomes, which we can then analyze and refine political policies around.

Further, because our Constitution prohibits strictures on where you can travel and live within the 50 states those locales will, over time, either gain or lose people and political influence.  Yes, it takes a long time.  Go ask Lori Lightfoot how she likes the departure of multiple major corporations along with their employment and tax base from Chicago across the last few years.  Did that happen overnight?  No, it took decades and plenty of people with money who like the culture and such in said cities first tried to fix it through the political process.  It was only when that process was exhausted and the conclusion was reached that further attempts were pointless that the moves were made.

Such as it is now with Roe.  Those who want easy and immediate access to abortions and consider it a lifestyle issue worth residence can and should move to a state or town that will protect same.  There are several where the political winds hold that abortion, whether early on or all the way up to the moment of birth, is indeed something they wish to consider the sole domain of the woman in question.  If you hold that view then move to one of those places; U-Haul is ready when you are.

If you hold the opposite view -- that being Homo Sapiens confers protection from the moment of distinct life then move somewhere that has or will restrict or even ban abortion.

That is actual choice; those who believe they have a right to impose their views on others by force are not for choice at all.  They're for sticking a gun in your face and demanding you do what they want exactly as they did with Covid.  Witness the threats to burn or even kill from the left over this decision.

In a civilized society an act in furtherance of same is properly called felony assault and it confers upon the person assaulted the right to stop the assailant immediately, including through the use of deadly force.

No, the Supremes have not restored the Constitution as many on the right will claim.

But they did take a couple of the torn pieces of said Constitution that have been used as birdcage liner for decades and taped them back together.

There is much more to be restored and no guarantee our system of government will do so but this is, objectively, progress.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2022-06-21 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 516 references
[Comments enabled]  

Ok, so they're half-crazy.

World swimming's governing body has effectively banned transgender women from competing in women's events, starting Monday.

FINA members widely adopted a new "gender inclusion policy" on Sunday that only permits swimmers who transitioned before age 12 to compete in women's events. The organization also proposed an "open competition category."

Here's the problem: The ban should be absolute, since advocating for, which this does, the destruction of a minor's sexual function ought to get you locked up in a cell full of fire ants.

I have no quarrel with an "open" competition group but let's cut the crap: When it comes to events where musculature and cardio are determinative of success there are going to be a severe deficit of "XX" chromosome people successfully competing in such events.

For those of you who continue to insist on stupid, have a look here.

I just ran this race a few days ago.  I placed 21st overall and got bumped for first in division (50-59 age men) by 10 seconds.  I couldn't beat that guy, but I did keep Hanna and Michael from passing me.  In fact I passed her on the way into the stadium, where the finish was, and I could hear her behind me.  Nope, not today, said I, and the last part of it, which was around the warning track and then a run around the bases from 1st to Home where the mat was, got what I had left -- which was, surprisingly, a decent little bit after the fairly-ugly hills on the course itself.

Now look at the people faster than I was.  There were 20 of them.  Three were women and all three were at least 20 years younger than I am, with one being 15.  The closest 50+ woman in the race finished 44th overall at 29:01, more than four minutes behind me.

That's not because I'm Superman; I am most-definitely NOT.  It's because I was conceived by a combination of sperm and egg that contained an XY chromosome pair and, from that moment forward, my physiology developed differently than someone who was conceived with an XX chromosome pair.  This is determined at the moment of conception by the male's sperm which is either "XO" or "XY" and beyond that instant in time there's nothing you can do about it, ever, no matter what you do.

Once in a while you get an error in that process like all other biological processes.  This is how mutation happens in every organism and yet in virtually every case these are defects, when you get down to it.  That is, they produce harm objectively -- someone with Klinefelter's, for example, is "XXY" and typically has a micropenis.  Most men (and, I dare say, most women) would consider that a defect.

AP and all the screaming "advocates" are lying.  For example:

The debate essentially boils down to advocates who want to protect the space Title IX carved out for cisgender women — women whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth — and those who want transgender athletes who compete as females to enjoy the same protections as anyone else. Consensus is nowhere in sight, and the fights are piling up.

Sex is not "assigned" at birth; that is a damned lie and anyone who runs it should be loudly shouted down, and if necessary and they try to turn that lie into public policy, jailed or worse.

You don't "assign" sex at birth you recognize what is or is not present at the time of birth as objective fact.

If the baby has a penis it is male.  If the baby has a vulva and no penis it is female.  Period.

If it truly isn't clear genetic testing will prove one way or another, but it is rarely not clear.  About one in a thousand, or 0.1% of children, are not instantly and obviously male or female at the time of birth and that is not "assigned" -- it was determined by which sperm and egg joined at the moment of conception.  Anyone who claims an "assignment" was made by someone -- anyone -- at birth is a damned liar and a monster.  Period.

From said lie all the rest of the remaining bullshit with regard to this issue flows.

Title IX may be a wart-filled mess but it was passed because women's sports typically received less funding.  Is that "fair"?  Do you have a right, as a consequence of being alive, to "fairness" in that regard?  I argue the answer is NO because the fundamental issue is what people wish to spend money attending and thus which particular thing(s) attract more voluntary financial support.

Nobody is forced to go to a football game and spend money.  They go because they want to see it.  In a marketplace of ideas the best ones attract the most money.

To force "equality" in this regard is to steal from those who, in the view of the general public, are more attractive of someone's funds.  If people pay $100 for a ticket to watch men throw a pigskin around and tackle one another, but will not fill a stadium at any price when women play their version of said game, whether it be football, baseball/softball, basketball or similar that's not "inequality" -- its consumer preference.

To forcibly extract $20 of that $100 football ticket and give it to the girls sports team is theft at gunpoint and no amount of arm-waving and bullshit changes that.  Yet here we are, and now, having argued for the  "feelz" said women are screwed because the very same "feelz" are being weaponized by men who take drugs or even cut off their penis because they are profoundly unhappy with what happened at the time their first cell came into existence and therefore wish to punish others for their unhappiness.

Women deserve this outcome because it was women who argued against fact in the first place and demanded this garbage be put in place originally.  If you want women's sports to have a big gate (and thus be self-supporting) figure out what people want to pay to attend and support and provide it.

FINA is right but again the problem arose in the first place because feelz were put before facts and weaponized.  This in turn allowed those who know damn well they've got a biological advantage conferred upon them at the moment of conception in certain sports to turn around and "Black Knight" women's sports, taking the very arguments that were made to put feelz before facts and shoving it up women's asses.

The answer isn't to talk about "trans" anything.

The answer is to stop being stupid and repeal that which was passed to legislate feelz that contradicted facts, in this case Title IX, and tell those who are factually men but wish they were women that while they're free to do whatever they'd like in their private lives once they are adults at their own expense we will not, as a society, allow them to screw women out of a fair contest nor will we let them screw anyone of either sex out of a single nickel to assuage their insanity -- or anyone else's.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2022-06-10 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 635 references
[Comments enabled]  

Oh you've seen it.  Hell, now we've even got actual articles on it in the so-called mainstream press.


Oh really William?

You mean how you and your family acquired all your money?  By riding a credit bubble which our Congress created through fraud, artifice and promising people that "ever human can get help"?

A 30 year credit bubble, I might add, but heh, let's not pay any attention to the man behind the curtain pulling on the cords, eh?

But the truth is not what it appears.

Pulte has some three million followers on Twitter.  How many are actual people is of course unknown but let's face reality here -- even by his own claims he's only helped 2,000 of them.  In other words this is no different than the MLM promoter who claims you can be the millionaire standing on the podium with him.

Well, maybe.

But only a tiny percentage -- less than 1% -- ever will or can and its simply a function of arithmetic.

“Government should be doing it,” Pulte told the Associated Press. “But in the absence of government, we have to step up and help people who are dying of cancer, who can’t afford their diabetes insulin pump, who don’t have teeth.”

Just like government has skyrocketed the price of gasoline?  Oh, and of houses too, and how did your family get its money?  Why by exploiting that screwing!  Isn't it so nice that a mere 0.1% of the people who got fucked to the point of needing help now get some from you..... what a great guy!

Hunger Games indeed or, if you prefer...

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2022-06-08 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 397 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is a joke, right?

K-12 schools must allow boys into girls’ private areas to obtain federal funds for lunches, breakfasts, and snacks, the Biden administration announced this month. A U.S. Department of Education spokesman told The Federalist the Biden administration’s press releases from several agencies announcing this policy will be followed by formal rulemaking in June.

The actual policy appears to mean exactly that, although in typical Washington sidestep-speak they don't actually say it.

This is utterly ridiculous, but its common to the Federal Government and it came out of the "national" 55mph speed limit along with drinking regulations that should have, decades ago, been met with an immediate general uprising a clear statement that either the federal government cuts this crap out or it will be sacked, along with every employee of same.

Then again is it really just back to the the double nickel?


It's all the way back to Wickard .v. Filburn.

There's a price for not taking heads when that is exactly what needs to be done.

Welcome to government-sponsored Hell.  Oh, and homeschool your kids -- whether you live in a "Red" or "Blue" place.

Unless, of course, you're ok with a 16 year old dude sporting a big stiffy in your daughter's school restroom -- or locker room.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2022-05-28 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 613 references
[Comments enabled]  

Ever seen it?

I mean actual war.

Trench warfare.

Guys getting shot in the face.  Tossing grenades back out of the trench -- until you finally get tagged, are badly hurt and then a couple more are tossed in and....

Think it can't happen here?

Yes it can.

Warning: Definitely not safe for those who are bothered by... well.... reality.

H/t Pete.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)