Hildegarde

I’ve gone back to physical cookbooks from the last century. SEO slop has made the the internet useless for recipes for years, and now this.

That’s the old washington. We’ve had plenty of updates and fixed many of the issues for the new one. Good way to remember it is that the nation’s capital is called Washington DC. DC is an Italian abbreviation for Da Capo which means from the beginning.

Good first step. We can and should do more.

not this again

Crashing the stock market doesn’t destroy capital. The market crashing means that the sale price of shares are reduced temporarily. Shares are still a proportion of ownership in a company. The rich will still own the overwhelming majority of all shares no matter the share price. The reduced prices also allows the rich to buy up shares from ordinary people who had to sell to afford necessities. Capitalists use economic crashes to further entrench themselves.

Even if companies fail and collapse, any valuable assets will be taken by other companies. A crash doesn’t destroy capital, it just reorganizes it.

The US has gone through much bigger crashes than this, and none of them dismantled capitalism, and neither will this.

If you want to dismantle capitalism you have to actually put in the work of dismantling capitalism.

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.

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.

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.

As of 8:45 PM ET, Dow Jones futures were down 1.26%, S&P 500 futures fell 1.16%, and Nasdaq 100 futures declined 1.20%.

Stock market indices fluctuate regularly. If you multiply a small normal percentage change in a national index by the size of an entire national economy you’ll get a big number like $2 trillion to make an alarming headline.

There’s a saying in stocks, if you want to see the trend, zoom out. If you’re trying to push a narrative, zoom in. There’s a reason alarmist publications pick very small time intervals when discussing how markets are affected by government actions.