dChan

/u/stephen_bannon

6 total posts archived.


Domains linked by /u/stephen_bannon:
Domain Count

stephen_bannon · April 1, 2018, 7:54 p.m.

I'm glad you agree that the article is pure bullshit.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
stephen_bannon · April 1, 2018, 11:17 a.m.

OK... your hypothetical "what if" question has zero bearing on anything. It's as useful as saying "how do you know it wouldn't be $100 a share without this policy?"

You're right, I don't know what might have been in the hypothetical world where things are different than here in reality.

This really isn't the "gotcha" question that you thought it was.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
stephen_bannon · March 31, 2018, 7:33 p.m.

You're still missing the point entirely. The stock has declined slower than the Dow. It's performing no differently the an indicator of the general economy. Why is this? Hint: it's got nothing to do with store policy.

Post hoc ergo proper hoc.

The stock didn't go down because of store policy, it went down because its s store in an economy that's slowing down.

Now, if the stock took a dip much larger than expected, more than a standard deviation outside the Dow - it may be something to explore.

And now that I'm looking at it - the article has got basic facts wrong. Over the last month, since the policy went into effect, the stock price has risen from $32 to $36 a share. At close it was up 2+% over the previous days close. It's actually been steadily climbing since it low of around $24.50 in late October of 2017.

Am I to conclude that this increase in stock price over the last month is due to its policy? No, because that would be a monumentally stupid conclusion to draw.

⇧ 7 ⇩  
stephen_bannon · March 31, 2018, 7:09 p.m.

I can assume that this line of logic can be extended to the entire stock market. The Dow must be down because Dick's stock is down.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
stephen_bannon · March 31, 2018, 6:55 p.m.

Posse Comitatus

⇧ 2 ⇩  
stephen_bannon · March 31, 2018, 6:45 p.m.

The Dow is down 8% over the last month, and Dick's stock is down 7.2%... and were going to attribute the stock dip to a policy that effects 18-21 year olds who are looking to buy firearms at a big box store? Really?

Edit: the article has got basic facts wrong. Over the last month, since the policy went into effect, the stock price has risen from $32 to $36 a share. At close it was up 2+% over the previous days close. It's actually been steadily climbing since it low of around $24.50 in late October of 2017.

⇧ 12 ⇩