3 ms·

The thing is, you're listing off reasons why it "shouldn't" have a large impact... instead of looking at the data.

ben_jones 9y ago
What data? They say "source: Cowen" after showing a graph and laying out inferences in a video. Even if the data is correct there is a ridiculous amount of projection and FUD put out around the economic impact of weed in no small part to the fact that many people want it to succeed or fail regardless of what is actually happening with it. Sorry but I am highly skeptical of economic projections by biased parties. Especially when politics are involved, which in the case of weed, it is.
- kafkaesq 9y ago
  What data? I dunno, maybe have a look at, you know, the actual report (as opposed to the glossy summarization attempted CNBC article)? Sounds like you're pretty well settled on the idea that their findings have got to be FUD, no matter what the data actually say, though (being as you've just admitted that you've haven't actually looked at their data). So there's probably no need for you to bother.
  - ben_jones 9y ago
    The closest I could get was this [1] which seems like the CNBC report was not made from an actual report but instead: "In a research note this morning, Cowen analyst Vivien Azer downgraded Molson Coors (TAP) to Market Perform to reflect expectations for persistent beer volume headwinds". An Investment bank took a public position in something and now we get a bunch of articles and inferences fed to the general public as if they are absolute certainties. Investment banks are always right and have no self interests ever... right? [1]: https://thefly.com/landingPageNews.php?id=2536820&headline=TAP;KSHB;TPB;STZ-On--Cowen-downgrades-Molson-Coors-on-cannabis-threat-to-drinking https://thefly.com/landingPageNews.php?id=2536820&headline=T...
    - kafkaesq 9y ago
      Okay, then we can't (immediately) pull up the data then. Still, I wouldn't say "bogus, FUD, politically motivated, etc" in such a situation. I would just say "So it looks like we don't know yet. Let's have a look at the data."

What data? They say "source: Cowen" after showing a graph and laying out inferences in a video. Even if the data is correct there is a ridiculous amount of projection and FUD put out around the economic impact of weed in no small part to the fact that many people want it to succeed or fail regardless of what is actually happening with it. Sorry but I am highly skeptical of economic projections by biased parties. Especially when politics are involved, which in the case of weed, it is.

kafkaesq 9y ago
What data? I dunno, maybe have a look at, you know, the actual report (as opposed to the glossy summarization attempted CNBC article)? Sounds like you're pretty well settled on the idea that their findings have got to be FUD, no matter what the data actually say, though (being as you've just admitted that you've haven't actually looked at their data). So there's probably no need for you to bother.
- ben_jones 9y ago
  The closest I could get was this [1] which seems like the CNBC report was not made from an actual report but instead: "In a research note this morning, Cowen analyst Vivien Azer downgraded Molson Coors (TAP) to Market Perform to reflect expectations for persistent beer volume headwinds". An Investment bank took a public position in something and now we get a bunch of articles and inferences fed to the general public as if they are absolute certainties. Investment banks are always right and have no self interests ever... right? [1]: https://thefly.com/landingPageNews.php?id=2536820&headline=TAP;KSHB;TPB;STZ-On--Cowen-downgrades-Molson-Coors-on-cannabis-threat-to-drinking https://thefly.com/landingPageNews.php?id=2536820&headline=T...
  - kafkaesq 9y ago
    Okay, then we can't (immediately) pull up the data then. Still, I wouldn't say "bogus, FUD, politically motivated, etc" in such a situation. I would just say "So it looks like we don't know yet. Let's have a look at the data."