There are no inarguable facts about the market. Markets react to an uncountable number of variables and it is impossible to prove causation for market moves. Saying that this is an inarguable fact is either a boldface outright lie or misplaced overconfidence.

I happen to think that the market did react positively to the tax bill, but there is no way I would say that is an indisputable fact.

Clark,

He had literally zero to do with R votes falling in line. Youre out of your mind. Those votes were obtained by Mercer/Kochs/etc.

Lol ok CDL. If there was a god and he knew the answer infallibly you’d bet your entire future and current worth on it. Meanwhile, arguing there’s even a *tiny* chance that substantially increased long term profits don’t lead to higher stock prices is an absurd take.

you see it a lot with anyone who's trying to convince trump of something. flatter him publicly (which means lying because nothing genuinely nice can be said since he is a trash person) so he might listen to you. really it means flatter him so he's not a petulant baby when you try to give him advice.

so are you saying that it was impossible for the market to have gone down in light of this? If so then why?

If not then I believe you are extremely naive.

If it was indeed possible for the market to have gone down despite this then how is it possible that they undoubtedly took the market higher?

Buy the rumor, sell the news is actually a thing that happens all the time in markets.

To be clear, I am saying that if the tax law was reversed tomorrow with no chance of revival in the foreseeable future, the stock market would 100% go down.

Why do you think many markets in nations without a large reduction in corporate taxes have outperformed the USA, Clark?

I don’t at all care for the purposes of this conversation. The fact is without that bill the US Market would have underperformed by more.

Clark auditioning for HUCK’s job and doing a damn good job.

He's also making use of a ceteris paribus assumption without acknowledging so.

go down in what time frame? The "logical" or consensus reaction to many major policy changes is not actually what happens 100% of the time. Take a look at Brexit for a recent example.

In general, this thought it perfectly in line with consensus, but consensus has been wrong before on major policy shifts and it will be wrong again. Understanding that there are very few certainties is actually a pretty basic, but always relevant concept in the investing world.

Of course it’s in line with consensus. It’s how companies actually get valued.

**Which is frankly why I’m shocked you’re fighting me on something that I know is rudimentary to you.

If Trump died tonight the market would be up 500 points tomorrow.

Also not what’s being discussed.

Consensus isn't always right. Anyone with even rudimentary market experience knows this and can provide examples of when its been wrong in the past. The consensus in 2007 was that the market and the economy were doing great and that there was nothing to fear. We all know what came next.

Also the Keynes quote "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" is relevant and true. Just because something is fundamentally true from a theoretical perspective doesn't mean it will play out that way in actuality. Theoretical arguments are important and can be very persuasive and valuable for basing actions on, but they aren't always relevant when discussing market reactions.

I think you guys are confused and thinking Clark and I give Trump credit for all of the market's rise since election day. The markets would be up no matter who was president but Trump and the tax cut being expected was some additional help. It is idiotic or dishonest to argue otherwise.

Its idiotic to give Trump credit for the tax cuts

Clark is right

CDL seems like you are making the case that the market is wrong here. Maybe you are right but you have a strong burden of proof to overcome

It's idiotic and dishonest to argue against a thing no one knows the answer to or the effect of and will never be verifiable in any way other than by thinking about it.

Clark is arguing that the tax cut helped the market.

I am arguing that it makes sense for it to have helped the market and it should have helped the market, but that the market reacts irrationally often enough that market irrationality is an important factor to consider when trying to figure out which direction the market would move, with 100% certainty (his level), if the tax bill was repealed without any hope of a similar bill passing in the near future. I am also arguing that you cannot prove the causation here and that is important.

What am I saying the market is wrong about? If you can isolate a single variable and prove causation for market moves then you will probably win a Nobel Prize in Economics so it would be worth you or Clark doing some work on that.

The burden of proof is on people who claim, with 100% certainty, that a specific variable caused certain market moves.

The tax cuts helped the market in the shorterm. Trump had 0 to do with tax cuts. All there is to it.

do you think the following is true? is so what other events would lead to a 100% chance of a down move or a 100% chance of an up move?

Trump is absolutely responsible for the gains in the lawnmower, salt, border wall, and red hat markets

Maybe not 100% but pretty close.