Real World Event Discussions
Dow @ 20K. Time to jump off!
POSTED BY: JO753
UPDATED: Friday, April 4, 2025 13:08
VIEWED: 120054
PAGE 41 of 119
Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:23 PM
Quote:At this point today, fb is down 3% while Dow is up 1%.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:fb dipped below 150 in midday trading, a further loss of 6%. Then it rode the marketwide surge to close at 160.06.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:fb closed at 159.39 on Friday. Loss of 25.7 in 5 trading days, or 14%.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Users signed contracts which included the language. Facebook contracted with these other companies with language which certainly provides plausible deniability.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:Has it been proven that they all agreed to give 3rd parties, or this 3rd party in particular access to all of their data?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Dow closed at 24,610 on Monday, a drop of over 1%. Reportedly started by a selloff if Facebook, after weekend news showed Facebook have given access to a partner of data which customers had agreed to.
This close of the Dow is 7.5% off of the Record All-Time High, providing somewhat bargain pricing.
On 2 March Dow closed at 24,538. That was 11 trading days ago.
I'm assuming that they all did agree to this with the terms of service. But I'm not going to bother reading the terms of service to a service that I don't use. I just worked the last 6 nights straight. Last thing I want to do is dive into a bunch of legalese right now.
Hey... maybe if there's enough outrage there might be some laws passed that no longer allow companies to write these novels that nobody reads and slip a bunch of bullshit like this into them?
I won't hold my breath.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Does anyone truly believe Facebook didn't know this would happen, or was happening?
And what are Facebook users gonna do, stop using? It's gizmo crack.
Facebook users will forget all about this in 5 4 3 2...
Do you think the lawyers for Facebook have enough money To win?
I don't know what Facebook stock is going for. How many days do you think will pass before the price returns to Friday's price level?
Edit: fb was 185.09 on Friday, 172.56 Monday.
On Wednesday it closed a tad under 170. So in the past week, half its loss was from the story of data mining for 2016, then it steadied for a couple days, and then lost the other half from the story of Obama endorsing and allowing the data theft.
Some people here have said that the 6% loss for Facebook in the last 2 days was caused by China Tariffs.
That is a bigger drop than the Dow, which only did 4.7% total in the past 2 days.
What must be the Libtard excuse for Facebook falling so far behind the general Market? All those China FB users afraid of Facebook Tariffs?
Those Facebook Tariffs must be really scary to all those China FB users.
The fb price peaked at 195.32 at the start of February.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:42 PM
Quote:For some reason, the Libtard version of Nostradamus, as always, is a failure.
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:I agree - FB is an ongoing business with an undetermined financial future and nearly 2,000,000,000 users world wide and a market cap of $463 BILLION dollars, as opposed to an ex-president who is sitting at home learning cross stitch.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Did Facebook stock prices drop when news was reported about CA?
Did that initiate a large Market selloff?
The MSM said that was the cause and effect - do you disagree?Quote:Yep - you nailed it! (omg)
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Facebook is run by Libtards, are we agreed? So the news that a one-time occurance which supposedly benefitted Trump was unsettling to Snowflakes, right?
The concern could be mitigated with the Libtard view that CA was influenced by Manafort (no longer affiliated by that time), and then done solely to benefit Trump.
So the news that it was not a one-time occurance, going back years, should be ignored by Snowflakes?
If Snowflakes had imagined that fellow Libtard Zuckerwad would protect their interests, this new revelation could be unsettling.
If Snowflakes had imagined that fellow Libtard Bobo would not compromise their interests by obtaining this data, through a Manafort intermediary, this new revelation could be unsettling.
If Snowflakes had imagined that Obama had their best interests at heart, then this new revelation that he knew how the data was obtained and permitted it to continue, thus allowing Trump to use it as well, could be unsettling.
So, it's so unsettling they... sell their stock? Makes no sense - there's no financial driver there.
How many 'snowflakes' do you think there are, btw? Are they the ones who have been propping up the market? Do you think there are any other people investing in and influencing the market who aren't 'snowflakes?' If you think snowflakes hate Trump so much, why did the market continue to climb after Trump was elected?Quote:Guess you missed China's reaction yesterday even though it was everywhere:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
The China Tariffs were old news. Even Libtards had heard of it prior to this week.
The Facebook news was new.
Global markets plunge as China reacts to Trump’s steel tariffs
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/23/china-promises-to-hit
-us-with-tariffs-as-stocks-plunge-amid-fear-of-trade-war
China responds after Trump proposes tariffs and claims unfair trade practices
China reacts to Trump's tariffs by vowing to open its markets further
and on and on and on - no mention of Obama's CA relationship from 6 years ago (or was it 10?) causing even a ripple.
That's one way to know your Libtard News is merely spin. The spin only works on past events that it was spun for, the past spin does not work on the Real World Events going forward. The Spin Doctors must feverishly craft new lies to explain current inconvenient truths, to cover-up the exposure of all their prior fabrications aka Spin. OR, they could just distract, divert attention - LOOK! Clinton just bombed an empty tent in Afghanistan! Obamanomics caused somebody to pass Wind in Greece! Moochelle is eating ice cream!!
What is your current Spin for why fb is falling? Lettuce gather round to bask in your wisdom.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:14 AM
Dow closed today at 23,857. Down 1.43% for the day. That is 10.4% off the Record All-Time High. This is the 3rd day in 2 months that the DOW has closed 10% - 13% off the Record All-Time High.
Apple and Micro$haft are components of Dow.
The 3 most valueless - Apple, Micro$haft, Facebook - all went down.
S&P 500 was down 1.73%, NASDAQ down 2.93%.
Fb closed at 152.19, after dipping to 150.75 an hour before. A 5% drop. That is 22% off it's Record All-Time High 54 calendar days ago. Does this mean Zuckerwad is no longer a Billionaire?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, March 28, 2018 5:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
For some reason, the Libtard version of Nostradamus, as always, is a failure.
That's one way to know your Libtard News is merely spin. The spin only works on past events that it was spun for, the past spin does not work on the Real World Events going forward. The Spin Doctors must feverishly craft new lies to explain current inconvenient truths, to cover-up the exposure of all their prior fabrications aka Spin. OR, they could just distract, divert attention - LOOK! Clinton just bombed an empty tent in Afghanistan! Obamanomics caused somebody to pass Wind in Greece! Moochelle is eating ice cream!!
What the f*ck are you even saying? I DARE you to make sense of what you said without using more nonsense.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What is your current Spin for why fb is falling? Lettuce gather round to bask in your wisdom.
FB doesn't make anything, no object like a car or something tangible people can hold. A large part of their valuation comes from user numbers (data & advertising) and those numbers come from user trust. Once that trust is damaged, user numbers decline and perceived value drops - pretty basic Econ 101.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:47 AM
Quote:The problem with you being such a pervasive liar is that you are having trouble remembering which lie you are caught in.
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:What the f*ck are you even saying? I DARE you to make sense of what you said without using more nonsense.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
For some reason, the Libtard version of Nostradamus, as always, is a failure.
That's one way to know your Libtard News is merely spin. The spin only works on past events that it was spun for, the past spin does not work on the Real World Events going forward. The Spin Doctors must feverishly craft new lies to explain current inconvenient truths, to cover-up the exposure of all their prior fabrications aka Spin. OR, they could just distract, divert attention - LOOK! Clinton just bombed an empty tent in Afghanistan! Obamanomics caused somebody to pass Wind in Greece! Moochelle is eating ice cream!!Quote:FB doesn't make anything, no object like a car or something tangible people can hold. A large part of their valuation comes from user numbers (data & advertising) and those numbers come from user trust. Once that trust is damaged, user numbers decline and perceived value drops - pretty basic Econ 101.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What is your current Spin for why fb is falling? Lettuce gather round to bask in your wisdom.
When the story came out that FB, CA, and Trump Campaign used consumer data, FB stock price dropped for a couple days, then slowed and started gaining again.
Then the story came out that the same thing happened with Obama, and also that Obama knew about the abuse of consumer data yet did nothing to help protect consumers. Since then the stock price has gone down.
You claimed then that the price drop which followed the rebound (after the drop from Trump story) was not related to the Obama story, that would make no sense. You claimed that, instead, the FB stock price drop the second time was due to CHINA TARIFFS.
FB price didn't stop dropping once the Obama story was out. When the whole of the Stock Market had a banner day of gains (suggesting an end to fears of CHINA TARIFFS), FB still dropped. This defies your Spin that the FB price drop was a result of those fears, and that it was unrelated to the Obama story release. And when the Market loses a percent or 2, FB is losing 5%.
So now you feign ignorance that you tried to Spin the story. You feign to recall what your Spin was a few days ago.
And now you seem to claim that the ignoramus (with your name) was wrong when he posted that people would not sell because of the Obama story and the resulting distrust, because it is Econ 101 that they would sell due to this distrust. Which, of course, is what I said (and perhaps 6ix), but you claimed it was dumb to think that true, at that time.
It is pretty bad when you require that somebody else explain to you which lie you are telling on which day.
If you would just start telling truths, you would have no need to keep track of all your lies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, March 28, 2018 6:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:The problem with you being such a pervasive liar is that you are having trouble remembering which lie you are caught in.
When the story came out that FB, CA, and Trump Campaign used consumer data, FB stock price dropped for a couple days, then slowed and started gaining again.
Then the story came out that the same thing happened with Obama, and also that Obama knew about the abuse of consumer data yet did nothing to help protect consumers. Since then the stock price has gone down.
You claimed then that the price drop which followed the rebound (after the drop from Trump story) was not related to the Obama story, that would make no sense. You claimed that, instead, the FB stock price drop the second time was due to CHINA TARIFFS.
FB price didn't stop dropping once the Obama story was out. When the whole of the Stock Market had a banner day of gains (suggesting an end to fears of CHINA TARIFFS), FB still dropped. This defies your Spin that the FB price drop was a result of those fears, and that it was unrelated to the Obama story release. And when the Market loses a percent or 2, FB is losing 5%.
So now you feign ignorance that you tried to Spin the story. You feign to recall what your Spin was a few days ago.
And now you seem to claim that the ignoramus (with your name) was wrong when he posted that people would not sell because of the Obama story and the resulting distrust, because it is Econ 101 that they would sell due to this distrust. Which, of course, is what I said (and perhaps 6ix), but you claimed it was dumb to think that true, at that time.
It is pretty bad when you require that somebody else explain to you which lie you are telling on which day.
If you would just start telling truths, you would have no need to keep track of all your lies.
I see the problem - you're confusing yourself.
Here's what happened:
You said:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Now that it was revealed that Obama knowingly used the same company with their data mining, the Markets are all down.
To which I informed you that, no, it was because China pushed back on Trump's threats of a trade war, THAT THE MARKET WAS DOWN. I cited a slew of headlines agreeing with that.
AND THEN you said:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
"What must be the Libtard excuse for Facebook falling so far behind the general Market? All those China FB users afraid of Facebook Tariffs?"
That's where you left the rails and said the China FaceBook Tariffs thing.
Econ 101 refresher:
Since FaceBook is part of The Market it can be effected by its general swings up and down. It can also be effected by specific FaceBook only issues, such as their current privacy/data issues. It's really simple, why do you make it so hard?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, March 28, 2018 7:24 PM
I'm pretty sure that neither story did anything good for Facebook.
I don't believe that FB was okay after the Trump story. There might have been some possible gains afterward because the market didn't actually understand the issue and people may have chaulked it up to "Oh... Trump did a bad thing? Go figure." and then ignored it.
Once it came out that the entire platform of FB is designed to steal all sorts of data about people using it and many huge users of FB publicly stopped using it cold turkey, particularly from YouTube channels that have subscribers in the Millions, the stock was hit really hard.
FB is scrambling to create a campaign to minimize this damage. They've even taken out expensive full page ads in many publications about it. Zuckerburg is being forced to testify before Congress about this. (Stories say that he has agreed to it, but that is a FB friendly lie and he is, in fact, being forced.)
I think that you two need to stop bickering over Partisan bullshit. Your blinders constantly keep you from viewing the bigger picture, and this is just one very good example of this.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, March 28, 2018 9:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I think that you two need to stop bickering over Partisan bullshit. Your blinders constantly keep you from viewing the bigger picture, and this is just one very good example of this.
As usual, wtf are you talking about? "FaceBook stock will move up and down with the Market & FaceBook will take a hit from bad image/bad press/bad behavior." Where's the partisan anything in there? Maybe you didn't read our posts?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I think that you two need to stop bickering over Partisan bullshit. Your blinders constantly keep you from viewing the bigger picture, and this is just one very good example of this.
As usual, wtf are you talking about? "FaceBook stock will move up and down with the Market & FaceBook will take a hit from bad image/bad press/bad behavior." Where's the partisan anything in there? Maybe you didn't read our posts?
JSF is arguing that the Trump story had nothing to do with the FB fall in stock price other than a momentary blip, and that it was the Obama administrations use of Facebook to mine data that triggered the huge drop in stock price.
I'm arguing that both were part of it. I'm also glad that Trump's use of it sparked investigations that later revealed Obama's use of it. Awareness of what the platform is capable of is key, and I don't give a shit which politicians are using it.
I don't know what the hell you're talking about. You only seemed to argue him when he was blaming it on Obama. Seemed like you were coming to the defense of the Democratic party above all else, as you always do.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't know what the hell you're talking about. You only seemed to argue him when he was blaming it on Obama. Seemed like you were coming to the defense of the Democratic party above all else, as you always do.
Your assumptions are bs - I've railed against Hillary many times. Try reading. I could care less about Obama or Clinton NOW. They are long gone, da. You will find - if you look with an open mind - the only people who use their names now are the ones trying to deflect from Trump's dumb f*ckery.
You never answered: you really think anyone cares that Obama dealt with CA 6 or more years ago? How does that tangibly effect our world? Explain it without using your feels. Why would you sell stock in MacDonald's if you heard Obama used CA? Or if you find out the cost of imported Chinese goods might be going up, would you think that would effect the stock market more?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME