United States | News & Politics

2731 readers

1376 users here now

Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

165

The S&P 500 lost more than $2 trillion in market capitalization within 15 minutes in reaction to Trump tariffs. (decrypt.co)

submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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.