The Fundamental Incompatibility Problem
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
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.


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.

2018-06-29 07:42 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 297 references Ignore this thread
The Fundamental Incompatibility Problem

Fundamentally-incompatible things can be serious trouble.

Put gasoline in your diesel-fueled vehicle and see what happens.  Or the converse.

Drink a bunch and then go operate some sort of machinery.  The outcome is likely to be very bad.

Welfare in general -- where you are given a right to take from someone else by force something you want but have not earned -- is incompatible with a lot of things.

One of the things it's incompatible with is an "open border".

This is math, not politics.  America has ~330 million people.  There are somewhere north of 7 billion people on this planet, most of them with standards of living that are below our poverty line.

If you have an open border and welfare it is only logical that all of them will want to come here.

It is mathematically certain that combining those two things will collapse the economy, asset markets and the government, leading to outright Civil War.


Because there is an amount of theft from someone, for which they get nothing but are forced to give it to someone else who gave nothing in return, that results in any rational person deciding to kill either the recipient, the person doing the forcing of the "gift", or both.

For many people that number is somewhere around when they wind up under a freeway overpass.  For some it will be well beyond that, even beyond the point of literal starvation and death, after which of course they're incapable of taking matters into their own hands.  And for some it comes long before then, as is outlined in The Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It is their right, it is their duty.

Read that carefully folks, because those men were not making things up out of thin air.

They were expressing in words a fundamental human truth and issuing a clear warning to the British Crown: Try to force us to continue to put up with your crap and we will do whatever is necessary to compel you to stop, up to and including killing you.

The Crown, of course, said "nuts!" and we know what came next.

America long allowed virtually anyone to come through a regular border crossing (not simply walking in) and declaring that they wished to be American.  But being American meant taking the risk of the bad with the potential for the good.  There was no welfare, no Social Security, no disability, no Medicare or Medicaid.  There was no Section 8, nor "EBT".

In short you were free to come, and if you were of good character and demonstrated it by staying out of trouble you could stay, and eventually become a citizen.  But you never had a claim on anything that belonged to anyone else; you could only obtain any of it through voluntary exchange, and the other party both could and often did say "No."

Then we decided, mostly during the time of FDR and since, that being in the country conferred upon you the right to steal from others.

We also decided that the 14th Amendment meant something that's not in the plain text of it; if you came here as a foreigner and pooped out a baby said baby was a citizen of the US and thus both said child and you, as the kid's parent, even though you are not a citizenwere entitled to steal from others also.  Note that the 14th Amendment specifically states that to be a citizen by birth your parents must be subject to the jurisdiction of the US.  Before you scream that I'm a racist please check with the native Americans who required a specific Congressional act long after the 14th Amendment to obtain US citizenship.

The problem is that theft is theft folks and at some point those who are stolen from, if they cannot obtain redress from the law, will do something about it on their own law be damned, exactly as occurred in 1776.

Do you want to find out where that line is the hard way?

If not then either you must cut the crap on immigration and only admit those who pay more not only personally but also cover all of their progeny's costs or you must get rid of all of their ability to steal from others.

Incidentally this extends to citizens too at some level; it is exactly this sort of you can steal with impunity model that ultimately led to the collapse of every socialist nation over time, without exception.

The Soviets found this out the hard way -- you had plenty of stores but nothing on the shelves since you couldn't compel people to work well.  You could compel to show up, but that's about it.  Ultimately their economy went in the toilet as the common person figured out that no matter how hard they worked they didn't get to keep any of it because it was all stolen from them and given to someone else.

That's hardly the first or last example -- Venezuela and Argentina anyone?  May I remind you that Venezuela just put the military in charge of their water systems?  That's right -- the nation no longer has the ability to deliver water to citizens expected in a first-world nation, despite having an utterly-enormous trove of natural resources.

We're headed there with them folks; the US Congress and Trump both think we can run budget deficits in excess of a trillion dollars indefinitely, and that's with a "good" economy.  Take a recession and that will double instantly.

Deficit spending is theft. It intentionally destroys purchasing power.  Economically it is identical to someone stealing your credit card and using it for themselves but you are expected to pay the balance in the future.

If we keep this up, and especially if we "welcome all who want to come" we will find out where the line is for a material percentage of the American population.

You won't like it when it happens and if you have any intelligence whatsoever you damn well better insist that this crap stop before we get to that point.

Go to responses (registration required to post)

No Comments Yet.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ