The Market Ticker - Cancelled
What 'They' Don't Want Published
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog
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.

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.

Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in any firm or security discussed here, and have no duty to disclose same.

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.

2022-09-17 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Other Voices , 336 references
[Comments enabled]  

Another fish -- and its a big-un with plenty of teeth -- comes over the transom courtesy of Ishmael....

 

There are a lot of strong feelings about the Brandon administration's recent student loan forgiveness announcement. I'm not going to get into it now, other than disgust that somebody who never went to college, as well as those who paid their loans off, are now paying for someone else’s puppet mastery degree. If money came out of University endowments, I would have cheered this on wholeheartedly. The sheer ire universities received might have snapped them out of their spending sprees.

Every state in America has universities, typically public land-grant, whose primary goal is research. Or should be.  We live in clown world, so their current focus is sports ball and DIEversity. And paying a whole bunch of non teaching, non research, paper pushing administrative positions. 

But where do they get the money?  There are several federal government agencies who give cash to universities via grants. 

Grants, student loans, and now student loan forgiveness.  There is a running theme here, but I can’t put my finger on it.  I really should have graduated from that state school instead of dropping out after a few semesters, perhaps I could recognize the pattern…

Here is a dirty little secret nobody will admit: research funding has become increasingly politicized in the past few years.  A prime example is the subject of today’s guest Ticker.

A University of Much Research partnered with a College of Mucher Research and produced a study that TPTB will love if they ever read it.  In typical fashion, the study attempts to apply SCIENCE! to something so fundamental a baby knows the answer:  Do masks affect social interaction?

Of course, the answer is masks do absolutely nothing to impede social interaction.  Because fuck your experience, it’s SCIENCE!

The basic design of this study involved dividing a college psychology class into two groups.  One group wore masks, hats, and sunglasses.  The other group did not.  Each group was instructed to find another person similar to them on the other side of the room and have a conversation based on a few prescribed topics.  Masks with masks, free breathers with free breathers. Demographic information, including political attitudes, was collected before the study.  Test subjects' impressions were surveyed after the experiment.

We’ve already seen what they were paid to discover, let’s look under the kimono and see how they did it. (All formatting from study quotes was added.)

From the study: “One of the 14 tests was significant; posture and movement were indicated as a reason to choose a partner more for conservatives in the No Mask condition, and this reverses in the Mask condition, F(1,202) = 7.45, p < .01. We are not sure how to interpret this individual coefficient.”  

Since these are PhD’s, I’ll use small words they can understand.  It’s body language, dumbasses.  Conservatives tend to be more reality based than liberals (although both are relative among college students).  The point was to pick a similar partner, and to do that someone has to be both honest with themselves and realistic about the world.  They size people up as they are, not fanciful projections. It is impossible to read facial expressions with a mask, sunglasses, and a hat!

Speaking of honesty, I have no idea how this dangerous research passed the Institutional Review Board. Afterall, according to SCIENCE! sex, race, and (made up words like) gender are all social constructs, not biological facts.  Surely being confronted with honest facts would be dangerous to some snowflake participants.

More study quotes:  “The liberal-conservative dimension played almost no role in response to wearing masks and interacting with masked others in 2012. But in 2020, mask-wearing was the most common difficulty for Republicans during the COVID-19 pandemic (van Kessel & Quinn, 2020). Democrats listed it ninth, and even then, a typical complaint was that others refused to wear them. This suggests that there is nothing inherent in wearing a mask that might concern conservatives—it is more likely the political meaning of mask-wearing that is being objected to (Martinelli et al., 2020).”  

There are plenty of problems with masks which have been discussed at length.  But the worst part is not ignorance of the statement, it’s the arrogance.  This is blatant gaslighting.

They defined one group’s reaction as NORMAL and judged others based on it. Who are these ass clowns to dictate what the proper attitude towards a mask is and further explain away the reasons for disagreeing as political?  This study was designed and executed by psychologists.  They know exactly what gaslighting is. Fuck them and their universities.

Let’s try that again from the reality perspective (where men and women are biological, not social constructs).

Liberals are too busy minding other people’s business to function in society.  This suggests wearing masks is not about safety, but control (Ishmael, 2022).  There’s some SCIENCE! for you.  It’s got a made up citation and everything.

But that wasn’t the worst conclusion.  This is:

“Meeting a stranger and having a short, low-stakes conversation is a common task, particularly for college students, but the task is not unusual in urban or industrial societies in general. We can tell, without directly asking, if a stranger shares our attitudes; and these shared attitudes can help form the basis of friendship, romance, allyship, and cooperation (Bahns et al., 2017). For a common task of this sort, regardless of location on the political spectrum, wearing a mask, a hat, and sunglasses does not impede this fundamental skill.

And there is the money quote. Human relationships are not formed on banal interactions. They are formed by meaningful, deep conversations. And that is the crux of the problem. These people drew conclusions that demonstrate they think banality and depth are the same. Can you imagine trying to raise a child talking about the weather? What about talking to a loved one and not being able to read their expression?

The media can quote this study to gaslight all of us. This pile of bullshit “proves” dehumanizing a person doesn’t impede relationships.

What was the real goal of this, besides a university handout? The more atomized and alone we are, the easier it is to mold us into true believers and create a mass formation. 

This study justifies gaslighting people until they believe masks are normal, their objections are a personal failing, and they must do the Current Thing to be accepted.  These tortured souls will do anything to belong.

And your tax dollars paid for it.  University Delenda Est!

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2022-09-16 13:53 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 481 references
[Comments enabled]  

So CDC, NIH and others are over-reach and bullshit extraordinaire.

I was asked to speak on this briefly today.  And did.

Then the conversation went toward "smart meters" and the overtones of "5g."

Jesus, cut the shit folks.

So-called "smart meters" are nearly all Zigbee-style devices which is a quite-common option for home automation.  This is a mesh technology and typically runs in the same bands as your WiFi router does, with less power in terms of ERP (effective radiative power) than your cellphone -- and not by a little either, given the wild difference in distance between the device and you.

The reason the power companies use this is because it can be certificate-based for security and thus is quite secure from interception or tampering, which is a really big deal when you're talking about people's power bill never mind being shut off if you don't pay.  While they could have designed their own why re-invent what already exists and is available to anyone who wants to use it when that is perfectly-suitable to the task and quite secure?

Here's an ARRL document on them, which is entirely accurate by the way.  902 Mhz is very close to the Z-wave US frequency (908 Mhz) and I've had that stuff all over my house for over ten years.  You probably have too, since it was one of the earlier "cordless phone" frequencies (nowdays most are on 2.4Ghz.)

FCC power requirements limit such a meter to one watt of RF power.  For comparison your cellphone is tower-controlled as to power level but, because you walk around with it near and on your body (which attenuates the signal thus can cause the power required to go up) its limited to 600mw, or 0.6w, which is the maximum for a handheld device.

A common ham radio HT or "walkie talkie" has both a 1W and 5W setting.  I own two.  My ham "base" transceiver has a base power level settable of up to fifty watts but the power I'm allowed to run depends on the band I'm operating on and, depending on the band and the power limits associated with amateur radio use on same I can run a linear amplifier behind that and boost the power to ten or more times that level.

I also used to work on Ku and C band microwave transmitters and in fact did control software for some of them; the C-band klystron units, in particular, had rated power outputs into the kilowatt range, with TWT units typically having rated outputs around 300-600 watts.  These were continuous ratings, not "burst" or "pulsed".

All of RF is, as you learn if you ever study it, subject to the inverse-square law.  This is why the local FM radio station frequently runs somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 watts of output power yet at your radio the signal level received by the antenna is tiny.

Thus while your meter may emit 1 watt and your cellphone is 6/10ths of that the meter is almost-certainly a hell of a lot further away from you than the phone just as your FM radio or TV is from the transmitter and thus the actual power you are exposed to is a tiny fraction of that from your cellular device, laptop connected via WiFi (which of course is transmitting) and similar.

In addition the meter transmits on a periodic basis because all the others within "listening range" have to not be transmitting at the same time or they will "step on" each other since they're all on the same frequency band.  The "mesh" is what makes this work; in short your neighbor "helps" your signal get to one of the utility company's antennas and vice-versa.  This is, of course, wildly different than what happens when you use a cellphone, PDA or laptop where your transmission is for you -- and only you.

In short the argument is bullshit unless, of course, you have no electronic devices in your house and do not live anywhere near a transmitting radio or TV station, nor do you have a transformer (which also emits EMF) on the pole or pedestal outside your home.  Well, perhaps not if you're Amish.  For everyone else?  It's crap.  Period.

The other argument is "dirty power."  Guess what I own?  A Tek digital storage oscilloscope, with which I can trivially look at the power quality coming from my AC outlets just as easily as I can use it to design, diagnose and fix electronics.  I have.  The claim is nonsense.

Why do power companies love smart meters?  Because they don't have to send people out to read them, so their costs are lower.  In addition nearly all (if not all) have a remote disconnect capability.  This cannot be used to shut you off for load management as its not designed to be used on a regular basis (it has a rated connect/disconnect under load life of perhaps a hundred cycles) so in terms of a "rolling blackout" that's not how they'll do it -- if they try they'll be buying a lot of new meters when the contacts fail.

But if you don't pay your bill, well, that's a "once in a while" deal and yeah, they can and do use it that way since now they don't need to send someone out to remove the meter from the socket and potentially meet the deadbeat with a 12ga shotgun who's rather interested in them not removing it and thus shutting their power off.

What I was asked to speak to was CDC overreach and my view that the agency should be destroyed, as their malfeasance and misfeasance, all of it intentional, goes back decades and is well-documented as is that of the FDA and NIH.  AIDS was one of the most-egregious examples but hardly the only one prior to Covid, never mind the CDC's refusal to actually act within their authority and seize and destroy contaminated items in interstate supply (such as E-coli contaminated food), which under statute they are empowered to do.

Nonetheless I refuse to have my name associated with bullshit and, while I'm polite enough not to call it out while on the Zoom, it shall not pass without my commentary here, on the record and exempt from roll-off.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2022-09-14 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Personal Health , 887 references
[Comments enabled]  

.... if they find the "wrong" things.

The hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users (p < 0.0001), and by 29% among irregular users compared to non-users (RR: 0.781; 95% CI: 0.49-1.05; p = 0.099). Mortality rate was 92% lower in regular users than non-users (RR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02-0.35; p = 0.0008) and 84% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.04-0.71; p = 0.016), while irregular users had a 37% lower mortality rate reduction than non-users (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.40-0.99; p = 0.049). Risk of dying from COVID-19 was 86% lower among regular users than non-users (RR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.03-0.57; p = 0.006), and 72% lower than irregular users (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.07-1.18; p = 0.083), while irregular users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.32-0.76; p = 0.001).

Wait.... what?

Cureus is an open-access general medical journal and not new on the scene, formed in 2009.  Unlike those that can be forcibly censored by their sponsors this one operates on a publish, then peer review model which prevents that.  Does this impact the quality of the work?  Well, you might think it could, except that the so-called "mainstream" journals have repeatedly published crap and, from the post-publication reviews done, an utterly astounding percentage of their claimed "trials" cannot be replicated.  Science isn't about publication; if you can't replicate a claimed experiment and get the same result you're at best incompetent and likely lying.

Let me print the conclusion for you:

Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.

Indeed.  Dose-response is one of the gold-standard markers.  Failing to find it is a good indication whatever you think is going on, presuming you don't hit toxicity limits, is wrong.  Finding it is not proof you're right but its a pretty good indication.

This study was run out of Brazil and, importantly, was prospective; that is, they didn't try to reverse-evaluate something later on and draw inferences; instead this was an intentionally-designed study, got IRB approval and was monitored both for adverse events and outcomes. 

The study itself was completed in December of 2020.  Yet here we are, a year and a half later, and only now does it hit the press.

Well, sort of hit the press.

Notice how it hasn't shown up anywhere in the so-called "mainstream" reporting?

I'll bet it won't.

Ever.

Especially when one considers that the results are wildly better than the jabs, with a much safer side effect profile, particularly given that the dose used did not exceed that for other common but not life-threatening conditions, specifically scabies..

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2022-09-12 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Foreign Policy , 735 references
[Comments enabled]  

..... that any nation that has operating nuclear power plants and gets involved in a war has a very high probability of suffering a catastrophic event screwing their own people?

"The team closely witnessed shelling in the vicinity of the ZNPP, in particular on 3 Sept. when the team was instructed to evacuate to the ground level of the Administrative Building," a report by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi to the United Nations Security Council said. "Moreover, the team observed damage at different locations caused by reported events with some of the damage being close to the reactor buildings."

So what?

I remind you that Ukraine started this war, provoking it originally in 2014 with the Maidan "color revolution" stoked in no small part by the United States in which our President's family was extracting money in exchange for his son's "services" on the board of Burisma which did not include any sort of actual knowledge of the industry in which the firm was engaged.

I further remind you that a sitting Senator, John McCain, traveled to Ukraine and gave speeches supporting said revolt.

Then, following said revolt, the new Government which Victoria Nuland, who still makes policy for President Biden, cheered on not only the Maidan Coup itself but in addition we have sat back and allowed said "new government" to shell its own territory because the people who lived in said territory identified with Russia.

And finally, I remind you that Crimea was actually purchased by Russia at the time of Catherine The Great, far before any of this nonsense involving the United States, the USSR and similar took place.  In point of fact said purchase is just as valid as is ours of Louisiana or Alaska, the latter of which occurred in 1867.  In other words the "root" of all of this is territory that was legitimately part of Russia right up until someone decided it was inconvenient for their particular political ends and crafted a story around all of it.

Then if that's not stupid enough that very same part of the globe installed and operates to this day nuclear power plants while stoking violence with one of its neighbors, engaging in color revolutions, assassinations and shelling of people living in its own territory.

Oh what could possibly go wrong?

It seems to me that the use of civilian nuclear power comes with a duty to be damn sure you do not get involved in military conflict less than an all-on nuclear exchange in which case, of course, nobody cares if your plant glows a bit more brightly than the surrounding countryside.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if the IAEA and UN had a hint of common sense their screaming about "non-proliferation" would have and would today include complete sanctions against any nation that engages in such activities, demanding the full shutdown and removal of radioactive material from same as soon as the first instance of that sort of misbehavior occurs.

You can have either nuclear power or you can foment violent revolutions within and beyond your territory, never mind shelling your own citizens.  If you try to have both we'll stop you because if we don't the risk is unacceptable that someone is going to blow up one of those plants, either directly or by disrupting critical supplies.  After all, its rather obvious where they are, they're very big, they're very difficult if not impossible to sufficiently defend against such events and as a result that's the deal.

Of course taking that position would be rather..... unpopular given that there are other nations around the world who both have nuclear power and similar facilities yet don't play nice-nice with their military capabilities, either in threats or acts.

Right?

Yeah.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2022-09-11 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 740 references
[Comments enabled]  

... and you should too.

Biden, of course, will make the obligatory speech.

The terrorists killed some 3,000 Americans, all of whom died because the FBI was not just incompetent, they were willfully blind.

Do recall that all of the below happened:

  • Bush governor in Florida gave a bunch of non-citizens driver licenses, with which they bought tickets and boarded the planes.  This was wildly improper since exactly zero said non-citizens and non-permanent residents had a permanent, legal Florida address yet exactly nobody was ever punished, that is, fired or prosecuted, for doing it.

  • The FBI ignored a call from the flight school where the terrorists were "learning" to operate said plane; the owner of same was ex military and called the FBI because said "students" had no interest in landing.  He was blown off despite being a military veteran with first-hand knowledge of extraordinarily unusual and suspicious activity.  Not one person in the federal government (including the FBI) was fired or prosecuted for their outrageously gross negligence which in fact was directly responsible for 3,000+ dead Americans.

  • Not one prohibited item got on board that morning yet millions of Americans are sexually assaulted every year since and, when the TSA is challenged by "tests" to see if they can actually find and stop bombs or guns they fail a disgusting part of the time.  Not once when they have failed said tests, which can only reasonably occur if you're not actually looking at the display, have the agent(s) involved been charged criminally for their clear criminal malfeasance or even fired.

  • Whether the private security and airlines who hired them were culpable has never been tested in court because the US Government protected that incompetence, both on the ground and in the aircraft itself.  We allegedly have courts for this exact purpose; to test said claims openly and assign liability.  In other words we no longer have a rule of law you can rely on.

  • It was clear within hours the hijackers were all, or nearly all, Saudi nationals.  Bush let many more Saudi nationals, some of whom might have been personally involved, leave the nation via private jet while the rest of us had our air travel suspended.  That is, our government deliberately allowed people who likely could have been tried and imprisoned for this or even sentenced to death to go free.  Fuck every single element of our government who did that, including the office of the President, the FBI and more.

Is 9/11 a day of somber remembrance?  You bet it is.

It's one of the key bright-line test days in which it was proved our government no longer functions except as a grift, fraud and death-dealing machine that can and will be turned on anyone, including our own citizens, whenever some rich jackass demands it.  Oh by the way, there are more than a few Americans dead this last time from combat with a virus for the exact same reasonso cry me a fucking river given that even after some nutjobs flew planes into buildings the American people refused to wake the fuck up.

PS: Before commenting make damn sure you read the FAQ.  This post does not suspend the rules around here and I suspect I will obtain a nice upper-body workout at least once today... 

View this entry with comments (opens new window)