Today, Dec. 12, Donald Trump appeared at the New York Stock Exchange to ring the opening bell.
Stock prices across the board immediately retreated.
Though this is timely information, the inference that these two events are related is an inaccurate model of reality or truth. I promoted it to provide an example.
Media across the board are in a habit of utilizing this kind of correlation inference to – intentionally or not – mislead those vulnerable to their gambit.
A noteworthy misleadership moment by media was the relief the stock market expressed after the U.S. election ended. Many stories promoted the correlation as a creditable event to the election result and the personality that was victorious, rather than the mere moment of the relief of uncertainty for active market participants.
There were many other more relevant and long-developing economic vectors, especially the Fed execution of a “soft landing” – avoiding a recession after the quantitative tightening after the 2020-2023 easing measures supporting consumers and the economy. Those were often mentioned far down in the stories, after which short attention spans would have already moved on to the next sensation.
Also, much was made of the change in TSLA stock valuation and Elon Musk’s wealth increase after the election result was rendered. None, however, pointed out that TSLA had not returned to the level it was at in November 2021, about nine months into the Joe Biden term.
A rough estimate, utilizing Core Consumer Price Index inflation numbers since then, would put an “equal” value for TSLA at $485 in today’s dollars. TSLA has receded to $417 (as of this moment on Dec. 12) caused by bell ringing by Trump … an act that ’caused the broad stock market retreat’, according to me, above, LOL.
Finally, there are multiple media claims that there are 77 million committed or ardent Trump adherents. At best this hyperbole is an attempt to mask deeper truth: choosing between bad and worse alternatives.
The margin of victory in the presidential election was less than 2% of the popular vote, which is not in any way a “democratic mandate” as some narratives are promoting.
It is at best a vague inference about the republic/states hegemony in our nation, where around seven small states and a plurality of very small states weigh in with outsized influence. That’s good; it keeps the republic engaged and drives it together.
But the gaming of the system is a challenging truth to accept for whichever side is on the losing end. Some propagate lies to rationalize the defeat, others gaze at their navels and self flagellate.
The narratives in media capitalize on short attention spans and a lack of analytic depth to propagate impressions, create myth, and generate clicks in the immediate moment only to sacrifice a basic necessity of democracy: an educated public.
Christopher Lucero
Saugus
