I would have gotten much earlier notice if I cared about the markets, followed the news, and actively traded. Articles like this are unhelpful because they are written to be as alarmist as possible, and aimed at people who don’t understand the markets.
People in the comments believe the alarmist headlines, when they are deliberately written to sound as bad as possible.
Its not reasonable to make conclusions off of 15m of data. Its manipulative to cite large numbers deliberately without context.
The fact that the trend happened to continue this time doesn’t make anything I said untrue. The news has claimed markets have “plummeted” many times this year only to immediately recover. Articles like this aren’t good predictions because they have been wrong every other time.
Articles like this are unhelpful because they are written to be as alarmist as possible, and aimed at people who don’t understand the markets.
It was aimed at people who do understand markets, and it actually understated the disaster, because it came out so early. We’ve already gone from the 4% market drop I reported to a 10% market drop in the S&P.
Its manipulative to cite large numbers deliberately without context.
It was 4% of the market. It was very large.
The news has claimed markets have “plummeted” many times this year only to immediately recover.
The S&P immediately went down another 5% today. So it is down 10% now. Half way to an official bear market. And it is going to go down again every single time we hear about another country retaliating against Trump’s tariffs.
Articles like this aren’t good predictions because they have been wrong every other time…The fact that the trend happened to continue this time
(1) The 4% market drop in the initial 15 minutes was not a “prediction” at all. It was a factual reality.
(2) You were treating this as a 1 day event random market fluctuation. It happened because Trump’s tariffs were even bigger than the Smoot Harley Tariffs that directly caused the Great Depression that lasted 12 years, not 1 day. The stock market was down 90% in 1933 from were it was in 1929.
It didn’t “happen to continue”. It wasn’t random at all. It happened because of a specific thing Trump did that had a disasterous and very long lasting historical parallel.
The headline did not say 4% of the market. It said a large number without context.
Why are you responding with new information? My critique this whole time has been about this specific article, and the kind of reporting that leads to it.
I don’t have any particular insight, nor have a been discussing the economy.
Obviously you should draw new conclusions when new data is available.
The headline did not say 4% of the market. It said a large number without context.
You could have checked the context of total S&P market cap before concluding that $2 trillion was an ‘insignificant’ number.
and the kind of reporting that leads to it.
CNBC is a highly reputable financial news source. It was wrong to be thinking and suggesting their reporting was bad.
Why are you responding with new information? My critique this whole time has been about this specific article
Okay. I guess my criticism is with the assumptions you made. When you said “the fact that the trend happened to continue this time…” it shows that you think of the stock market as a random casino divorced from real events. If you had known what the reason was for the huge drop on the first day and that it was tied to major past historical events, you would have also known that it was highly likely to continue on the next day.
In summary:
Your assumption that CNBC was a non reputable news source with some sort of agenda was wrong.
Your view of the stock market as a random casino and yesterday’s huge drop as a random one-off event not likely to be repeated was wrong.
Your assumption that $2 trillion was an insignificant fraction of total market cap was wrong.
I’m just saying, maybe be a little more cautious next time about throwing your spin on things if it is not something you personally participate in.
I would have gotten much earlier notice if I cared about the markets, followed the news, and actively traded. Articles like this are unhelpful because they are written to be as alarmist as possible, and aimed at people who don’t understand the markets.
People in the comments believe the alarmist headlines, when they are deliberately written to sound as bad as possible.
Its not reasonable to make conclusions off of 15m of data. Its manipulative to cite large numbers deliberately without context.
The fact that the trend happened to continue this time doesn’t make anything I said untrue. The news has claimed markets have “plummeted” many times this year only to immediately recover. Articles like this aren’t good predictions because they have been wrong every other time.
It was aimed at people who do understand markets, and it actually understated the disaster, because it came out so early. We’ve already gone from the 4% market drop I reported to a 10% market drop in the S&P.
It was 4% of the market. It was very large.
The S&P immediately went down another 5% today. So it is down 10% now. Half way to an official bear market. And it is going to go down again every single time we hear about another country retaliating against Trump’s tariffs.
(1) The 4% market drop in the initial 15 minutes was not a “prediction” at all. It was a factual reality.
(2) You were treating this as a 1 day event random market fluctuation. It happened because Trump’s tariffs were even bigger than the Smoot Harley Tariffs that directly caused the Great Depression that lasted 12 years, not 1 day. The stock market was down 90% in 1933 from were it was in 1929.
It didn’t “happen to continue”. It wasn’t random at all. It happened because of a specific thing Trump did that had a disasterous and very long lasting historical parallel.
The headline did not say 4% of the market. It said a large number without context.
Why are you responding with new information? My critique this whole time has been about this specific article, and the kind of reporting that leads to it.
I don’t have any particular insight, nor have a been discussing the economy.
Obviously you should draw new conclusions when new data is available.
You could have checked the context of total S&P market cap before concluding that $2 trillion was an ‘insignificant’ number.
CNBC is a highly reputable financial news source. It was wrong to be thinking and suggesting their reporting was bad.
Okay. I guess my criticism is with the assumptions you made. When you said “the fact that the trend happened to continue this time…” it shows that you think of the stock market as a random casino divorced from real events. If you had known what the reason was for the huge drop on the first day and that it was tied to major past historical events, you would have also known that it was highly likely to continue on the next day.
In summary:
Your assumption that CNBC was a non reputable news source with some sort of agenda was wrong.
Your view of the stock market as a random casino and yesterday’s huge drop as a random one-off event not likely to be repeated was wrong.
Your assumption that $2 trillion was an insignificant fraction of total market cap was wrong.
I’m just saying, maybe be a little more cautious next time about throwing your spin on things if it is not something you personally participate in.
the article is from decrypt.co what are you on about?
Edit: Who are you quoting? I never said “insignificant” in this discussion.
Edit2: I think I’m arguing with an llm.