Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (622126)	7/29/2011 10:29:04 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575047

I don't know that I would say coincidence. Usually one would use that term for something that would reasonably be expected to have a strong possibility of causing something else, and that something else happened, but not because of the thing your talking about. I wouldn't normally say "it was just a coincidence" if say I saw a nice sunrise then the next day I find out I received a promotion at work. There is no expectation of one thing causing the other, so "just a coincidence" would be an odd statement. OTOH it would be technically accurate, by the definition of two events that occurred close to each other in time. So if you really want to say it, then fine it was "just a coincidence", just like it was just a coincidence about the trillions of other things that occurred in that time period that did not cause stronger economic growth in the US. In this case it wasn't something that had no relation, it had a negative relation, the tax increase (again considered in isolation) harmed the economy, but it was only one of many factors, including the ones I've mentioned, others that might be demonstrated, and still others that will probably never be known or understood.