I could use a bit more explanation here. I’m seeing that the scoring mechanisms are claiming Good News, which others have pointed out is a sign of high variance. I’m seeing a quote that talks about the economy being less good than it has been in the past. And I’m seeing the conclusion that the markets seem to be having it both ways.
Isn’t it more charitable to see it as a statement that the economy has slowed, and yet fluctuations still happen? If the Kevin dude were the one claiming that the market has seen its biggest gains in 3 weeks (how is that even a useful metric?) AND saying that we are doing worse than ever, then I could easily see the failure of conservation of evidence. But it looks more like two sources arguing over a (probably nonexistent) cause to market movements than a witch trial. In THIS case.
The point is that whether the market went up or down, and whether the news was good or bad, the pundits can “explain” the market’s movements using whatever evidence they have.
I could use a bit more explanation here. I’m seeing that the scoring mechanisms are claiming Good News, which others have pointed out is a sign of high variance. I’m seeing a quote that talks about the economy being less good than it has been in the past. And I’m seeing the conclusion that the markets seem to be having it both ways.
Isn’t it more charitable to see it as a statement that the economy has slowed, and yet fluctuations still happen? If the Kevin dude were the one claiming that the market has seen its biggest gains in 3 weeks (how is that even a useful metric?) AND saying that we are doing worse than ever, then I could easily see the failure of conservation of evidence. But it looks more like two sources arguing over a (probably nonexistent) cause to market movements than a witch trial. In THIS case.
The point is that whether the market went up or down, and whether the news was good or bad, the pundits can “explain” the market’s movements using whatever evidence they have.
Ah, in that case, I’m on board.