2 ms·

It sounds like you're making a principled argument against tariffs. That's great, and whether you're right or wrong is independent of the stock market reaction.

It sounds like you're making a principled argument against tariffs. That's great, and whether you're right or wrong is independent of the stock market reaction. And there's a fine discussion to be had on the merits of tariffs and tariff uncertainty on economic activity. But attributing short-term market movement to a specific phenomenon is, to put it bluntly, plain foolishness. Ex post facto reasoning is almost always an absurd task and it's important to push back on it, *especially* when it confirms your own biases.

intended 2y ago
This is not a principled argument. This is the actions people I know are taking to manage investments. Look - I can’t help you if you wish to believe something. That’s an issue of faith. I have no idea why you believe that this is ex post facto reasoning. Tariffs cause recessions, it’s not even correlation. Let me elaborate - the moment Trump was elected, I knew that he was going to impose tariffs, and that it was going to tank the US economy. If you want logic, I can debate. If this is a matter of faith and belief that this is some error on my part and that no one can know things are causative - then that’s a matter of faith and religion.
- andrewla 2y ago
  It is a principled argument -- even if the stock market had gone up you would still believe that tariffs are bad. If your claim is that it is impossible for the stock market to go up in the face of tariffs, then you're making a real proposition which can be tested and (let's face it) easily shown to be false. Blaming the current stock market movement on a reaction to the tariffs is not a valid argument. Saying that tariffs have a negative economic impact is totally valid, and has a lot of evidence to support it. Trying to offer narrative explanations for market movements is a suckers game; it's just the bloomberg headline generator "Markets <insert direction markets moved> on news of <insert current news>", with no predictive value.
  - intended 2y ago
    I am ex-finance. I didn't get paid for intellectual arguments: > Saying that tariffs have a negative economic impact is totally valid, > narrative explanations for market movements is a suckers game So let me be clearer - I knew in November, that Trump's style of tariffs, were going to tank the economy, which would tank the stock markets which reflects the stock market. The causatory force (not correlatory) of tarriffs is well known, and I've lived in the era where tariffs were commonplace. I've seen an entire economy rise from the ashes when tariffs and protectionism was removed. You are hiding behind an intellectualism in a world where these kinds of blind spots mean someone else is taking your money.

intended 2y ago

This is not a principled argument. This is the actions people I know are taking to manage investments. Look - I can’t help you if you wish to believe something. That’s an issue of faith. I have no idea why you believe that this is ex post facto reasoning. Tariffs cause recessions, it’s not even correlation. Let me elaborate - the moment Trump was elected, I knew that he was going to impose tariffs, and that it was going to tank the US economy. If you want logic, I can debate. If this is a matter of faith and belief that this is some error on my part and that no one can know things are causative - then that’s a matter of faith and religion.

andrewla 2y ago
It is a principled argument -- even if the stock market had gone up you would still believe that tariffs are bad. If your claim is that it is impossible for the stock market to go up in the face of tariffs, then you're making a real proposition which can be tested and (let's face it) easily shown to be false. Blaming the current stock market movement on a reaction to the tariffs is not a valid argument. Saying that tariffs have a negative economic impact is totally valid, and has a lot of evidence to support it. Trying to offer narrative explanations for market movements is a suckers game; it's just the bloomberg headline generator "Markets <insert direction markets moved> on news of <insert current news>", with no predictive value.
- intended 2y ago
  I am ex-finance. I didn't get paid for intellectual arguments: > Saying that tariffs have a negative economic impact is totally valid, > narrative explanations for market movements is a suckers game So let me be clearer - I knew in November, that Trump's style of tariffs, were going to tank the economy, which would tank the stock markets which reflects the stock market. The causatory force (not correlatory) of tarriffs is well known, and I've lived in the era where tariffs were commonplace. I've seen an entire economy rise from the ashes when tariffs and protectionism was removed. You are hiding behind an intellectualism in a world where these kinds of blind spots mean someone else is taking your money.