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.
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.
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.
The Democrats have threatened to blow up the Supreme Court, basically, by packing it.
Of course they also are screaming that Trump appointing a justice now is blowing up the court.
In other words, one way or another the Supreme Court is going to get blown up.
I'm not sure I care any more.
The Supreme Court has long ruled however it wants to rule, which isn't its job. It just arrogated that to itself and nobody has done a damned thing about it. Just like The Fed has done whatever the Hell it wants to do, even when directly contrary to the enabling statute that created it. I remind you The Fed's actual statute says:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.
[12 USC 225a. As added by act of November 16, 1977 (91 Stat. 1387) and amended by acts of October 27, 1978 (92 Stat. 1897); Aug. 23, 1988 (102 Stat. 1375); and Dec. 27, 2000 (114 Stat. 3028).]
Stable prices are not "increasing 2% a year"; they're stable. Moderate long term interest rates are not near-zero; by definition time has value and therefore to be "moderate" the long term interest rate must be somewhat above the expansion rate of the economy over the same period of time.
The Fed has done no such thing for roughly 100 years. It has done so deliberately. The evidence is incontrovertible, since the price level and interest rates compared with nominal GDP are trivially assessed.
Exactly nobody has ever gone to prison for this nor has The Fed had their mandate pulled.
This is not to your benefit as a common citizen. Ever. It is, however, wildly to the politicians and a handful of people on Wall Street, K Street in DC and others' benefit. And -- it is illegal.
Note that the Constitution sets forth the right of the Federal Government to issue patents (Article I Section 8.) Patents, however, are denied by statute for any "naturally-occurring thing"; that is, you cannot patent a plant, animal, RNA or DNA unless you created it in a lab. Well, there are several coronavirus patents held by US parties. Either this is proof Covid19 was created in a lab funded by and thus with rights assigned to a US entity or said patents are a public fraud committed upon the people of the United States directly by employees of the US Government and thus constitute federal felonies. Which is it?
Note that the very same Article I Section 8 says that the military may be called up to suppress insurrections. What is burning or otherwise attacking a federal courthouse? Well? Law and order eh? What happened when people fired on Ft. Sumpter?
The Civil War was largely due to the refusal of the Federal Government to follow Article I Section 9 which prohibits the preference of one port or goods transited through it versus another. Yet that's exactly what the Federal Government did and ****ed the southern crop-growing states. If you think that was "merely" about slavery you really need to go read what Lincoln wrote about slaves and what he said he'd like to do with all the black people in America. That SOB was a ridiculously racist ******* and he got a ****-ton of people killed. You might also want to pay attention to the fact that the invention of machinery was in the process of rendering slavery uneconomic. Further, if you consume anything made with palm oil (that would be virtually any cosmetic or packaged food!) or own a pair of Nikes or many articles of clothing you are personally benefiting from slave labor in Asia, specifically Malaysia and China, right now. Oh yes, slavery was a big part of what led to the war, but it was egged on by both sides who wanted to see blood run in the streets. But slavery was hardly all of it; if it had been we would have blown China back to the stone age 20+ years ago. Instead we let them seed viruses into our nation and kill a couple hundred thousand Americans because it makes the stock price of Nike, Amazon, WalMart and more go up despite screwing the common American and their wages blind.
Are we really all that better now than in the 1860s when we loot, burn and shoot because a man shot at the cops who came to raid his residence with a warrant and as a result they returned fire? The Grand Jury in Kentucky correctly found that rounds going into a different apartment by said cops are criminal negligence but firing back when fired upon is not a crime.
It had ******n well better not be a crime -- not anywhere in America anyway, no matter the date, time, and who is doing the shooting back. The day that changes it's time for everyone to shoot now and let God sort out the pile of bodies.
As I have often noted there is no such thing as "resisting arrest"; you decide at the time they come that you're either going to fight it out in court and thus you surrender peacefully or you kill all of them right there and you better get them all too because they are going to kill you if they can. That's the decision. It's binary. "Resisting" is not a choice made by anyone who is sane because you cannot win and whatever the original charge was you just made it much worse with no possibility of gain. Zero-gain, always-lose actions are by definition undertaken only by insane individuals. So those who have rioted, looted and burned in all of these alleged "insults" did so because someone was insane and got what frequently happens when you act violently without the benefit of sanity.
That has exactly nothing to do with skin color so what is all this bull**** about looting, shooting and burning?
Where's that ****ing asteroid I keep praying for?
Then of course there is the seminal "**** you" to Federalism out of the USSC in the form of Wickard .v. Filburn where they literally tore up the Constitutional separation between Federal and State governments which is the very foundation on which our Republic rests. That alone is cause for an asteroid strike while the Court is in session and at the time was cause for an immediate Revolution. Again, I note the Supremes are not there to decide what the Constitution says; English is a precise language and the Founders were not only really careful with their words they took a hell of long time debating every one of them too. Nor is The Court there to decide how to twist said language, which they have done repeatedly including in both Wickard and Miller. Indeed, if you want to see torture of the English language one need only read Plessy .v. Ferguson.
It took until 1954 and Brown for the Court to recognize that, well, that wasn't Constitutional after all. I mean, reading is fundamental, eh? Yeah, sure it is.
But if you think that Brown meant we'd go back through the other obviously-defective rulings, such as Miller, Wickard .et.al. you'd be wrong. You'd be very wrong. Nearly zero of those have ever been overturned under this entirely made up thing called "Stare Decisis" which again you will find exactly nowhere in the Constitution.
So let's talk for just a moment about ACB, Trump's nominee.
She just recently upheld the lockdowns for Covid19. Her justification? A Supreme Court case on mandatory vaccination against smallpox, a disease with a 30% fatality rate.
That is some one hundred times or more the risk of death from Covid-19.
Under this rubric you can expect Amy to rule that any risk of a bad outcome from any human endeavor is properly the subject of federal and state regulation. In other words you can expect her to rule that not only must you be vaccinated against something that statistically has zero risk to you or even specifically has zero risk (e.g. you're already T-cell reactive to Covid) but in addition the local McDonalds can be ordered to withdraw its Quarter Pounder with cheese because you might get diabetes, become fat and die if you choose to eat it. The Court may outlaw scuba diving or skydiving. It may in fact outlaw walking across the street.
Indeed it can be under her standard of evidence ruled that no car may go more than 20mph and all must be surrounded with a 3' wide inflatable ballute so collisions will not cause serious injury or death. Bicycles and of course motorcycles can be banned outright; you might crack your head open on the concrete. Your only option remaining will be "rent-a-rubber-room that moves" which, of course, can be denied to you because, well, Uber decided so. Or we can arbitrarily set reaction time testing and incorporate it into the vehicle by law so it will not start if you are tired, and if you fail a re-test while on the road on some specified interval it is disabled where you are the time until you can pass.
There is literally no barrier of pre-existing rights, evidence, relative risk .vs. harm or anything else standing between you and whatever some nutjob who happens to have a government remit may force you to do whether they were elected or not. Down this road a cop can simply shoot you if you're speeding because it's easier than pulling you over; after all there's a 0.01% chance you MIGHT be dangerous. The entirety of the Constitution is void in her mind as soon as someone claims some "convenience" so long as they work for any branch of the government.
That's the definition of slavery, may I remind you, and you are the slave.
Oh I know, there will be those who cheer for her nomination because, it is presumed, being Catholic she'll vote to overturn Roe.
But Roe was a dog**** decision in the first place. There was never a threat that across all 50 states you'd not be able to obtain an abortion. Travel has only gotten cheaper and faster since the 1960s, of course; that's what technology does when left alone -- it makes things better, faster and cheaper. That's a good thing. It's called productivity and is why you don't live in a straw hut.
The premise of Federalism is that this is how we sort out what is good and bad among the population through natural political experimentation. The good results gain population and commerce while the bad ones lose. If smoking weed is a net good in tax receipts less social and medical costs born by others then it wins. Maybe some state says "take, make and sell whatever drugs you want but if you do, no medical insurance is obligated to pay nor will you be treated for free should you have a bad drug-related outcome -- including accidents if you're drunk or stoned at the time." Over time this tends to shift prosperity to the good decisions and away from the bad ones, and thus the bad ones are coerced through market means to become better. But of course the Roberts court ruled that unconstitutional with the PPACA, didn't it? On what basis?
How do you determine "good" or "bad" objectively when it comes to political decisions? By the fiat of nine? That's not what the Constitution says -- it says that only the things specifically under Government purview may be legislated and enforced, and everything else is none of the government's ******ned business.
Who among us thinks that it's "good" to ban bump stocks, mufflers on a gun that protect your hearing (but we can mandate them on a car) and short-barreled shotguns but bad to ban rifles that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition? Is not the 2nd Amendment both precise and clear in its use of the English language? Shall not be infringed isn't clear enough? Does the language need to be driven into your head at 3,250fps before you manage third-grade English comprehension? Are you telling me that the Founders needed to say "if you try to infringe the right to keep and bear arms the people must immediately shoot you in the face" in order for the language to be precise enough? I think not. The Founders did a perfectly-adequate job. It is you who let this bull**** go on over the last 100+ years.
Do you really think that ACB will uphold The Constitution? Since when does an "emergency" provide for the violation of same? Do remember that the Constitution is a document enumerating powers and a contract between the government and the people; if it's not in there the government doesn't have it. Thus I demand you cite Article, Section and Clause that says any such so-called order by any entity of government is constitutional. There is exactly one suspension of civil liberties and pre-existing rights allowed by the Constitution: That of Habeas Corpus, and only in the event of invasion or rebellion (Article I, Section 9.) A virus is neither an invasion or rebellion by definition as it lacks sentience. And incidentally, shall we talk about all those searches without particularized suspicion and a warrant which are prohibited by the 4th Amendment, also quite clear in its use of the English language -- especially since 9/11?
There is no other place or any other circumstance where the power to abrogate the Constitution is delegated to the government. If you assert there is then find it and cite it, or sit down and shut the **** up because it is with your consent that your ass is being rammed.
As such show me where ACB is materially different in that regard than Schumer and Pelosi's wish list if you can. Oh yes, on the specific things said Justices will ignore the Constitution they differ greatly. But not on the substance of their actions -- only on the specific butt****ings you will suffer under each. Whether the Stallion is white (Trump) or black (Biden) makes no damned difference when you're the one that gets mounted.
The last time I checked with what you got screwed didn't change the fact that you got screwed.
Where's my asteroid?