> They also quote the stock price and earnings per share as evidence for the decision being positive. No, actually. There's a tiny but important distinction he

> They also quote the stock price and earnings per share as evidence for the decision being positive. No, actually. There's a tiny but important distinction here: the author is merely saying that there was a certainty that there would be negative effects, and that the expected negative effects didn't happen. The author even grants that there isn't a certainty that this decision caused a positive outcome: "Of course, there are many other factors that have contributed to CVS’s ... stock performance." The article's only point is that ideologues and demagogues often assume with 100% certainty that there will be some negative outcome from some company changing some policy or another, but that this is a flaw in their thinking, because they're imagining the market to be something much more limited, simple, and rigid than it really is.