>>18672385Just because it's written on a headline by some shill doesn't make it true, anon. I've looked into that article and the claim only applies for one quarter, which is the worst quarter they had, which is why he picked that number and tried to use it as a representative sample. People like you are low information, you don't look into things, you just see what you want to see because it's too cognitively taxing for you to come to any conclusions other than the one you have preconceived.
