In Reply to: I don't think stock market and the American project are the same posted by blindness on March 04, 2026 at 17:34:53
My point is simple: there are enormously valuable companies operating in countries I consider hostile or morally compromised.
Gazprom in Russia
BYD in China
Al Rajhi Bank in Saudi Arabia
MOL Group in Hungary
Markets reward profitability and growth, not virtue. Capital flows to returns, regardless of the political system behind them.
There’s an attempt by Dems to tie war directly to immediate stock market declines. But historically, war economies can boost corporate profits even while weakening a country’s long-term fiscal health, social stability, or global standing. War can be good for certain firms despite being bad for the nation as a whole.
Declaring victory or catastrophe based on a minor move in the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the S&P 500 is misguided. A one-percent swing is unremarkable.
The reality is that a small group of dominant firms drives a disproportionate share of our current market gains. As long as a handful of companies continue delivering explosive growth, for AI, energy, defense, or any other reason, the broader indices can rise regardless of foreign policy decisions.
If critics want to argue that war is harmful, they should focus on stronger connections: long-term debt expansion, inflationary pressures, geopolitical instability, or the human cost. Using the Dow — thirty of the largest, most diversified corporations, many insulated from direct war exposure, is one of the weakest possible metrics to make that case.