I don't think GP's comparison is as silly as you think. People thinking about "money" take many different numbers, from a shitload of source, into account.

There's a relation between P/E and future actual revenues of a company.

Imagine that a similar comparison would imply that it's projected that in a few years NVidia's revenues shall represent 10% of the US's GDP: do we really believe that's going to happen?

The Mag 7 + Broadcom have a market cap that is now 60% of the US's GDP. I know you think it's silly but... Doesn't that say something about the expect revenues of these companies in a few years?

Do we really think the Mag 7 + Broadcom (just an example) are really to represent the % of the actual US's GDP that that implies?

Just to be clear: I'm not saying it implies the percentage of the US GDP of these 8 companies alone is going to be 60% but there is a relation between the P/E of a company and its expected revenues. And revenues of companies do participate in the GDP computation.

I don't think it's as silly as several here think.

I also don't think GP should be downvoted: if we disagree, we can discuss it.