During most of the dot-com boom, there was not a broad consensus that a bubble existed, whereas today’s AI boom is widely accompanied by media warnings about an AI bubble, making public awareness much higher than it was in the late 1990s. I don't think a single person hasn't heard the "circular financing" talking points from multiple people who think they're being insightful. Or Burry who thinks a GPU should be trashed after 2 years. Doesn't sound like irrational euphoria.

▲

diamond559 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There is better awareness of everything bc of the internet, you are just in the disbelief phase even though markets have already peaked and insiders are heading for the exits.

▲

bofadeez 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Eugene Fama believes it's impossible to detect a bubble. Why do you think he's wrong?

	▲	diamond559 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Why do you think Jeffery Gundlach is wrong when he just said literally everything is overvalued? Everyone knew it was a bubble in 2001 and in 1929, that's part of being a bubble, it doesn't make sense but it just keeps going up ignoring all risks. Is there liquidity for a little more yeah maybe, but when everyone is long and highly leveraged there is only one way for things eventually to go.

▲

jbs789 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The general term bubble doesn’t help.

It’s reasonably obvious that there are some very high expectations baked in to certain equity valuations.

Leave it to the reader to take a view on whether it makes sense.

▲

bgwalter 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Greenspan warned about irrational exuberance, the newspapers were full of articles like the Guardian one:

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/a...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/1999/dec/20/nasdaq.efin...

This time, "AI" has been hyped up more than tech in 1999 by the media. The media has just reversed course in 2025 because they found out that most people hate "AI". in 2023-2024 it was mainly hype.

	▲	fy20 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This line from The Guardian article: "The notion that Amazon.com will be allowed to corner the market in on-line book sales is wholly implausible."
	▲	toss1 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The thing that got me most about Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan's warning about "irrational exuberance" of the markets was that the warning was in 1996, and it seemed to me and many others already obvious by then, and that Greenspan was cautious and late in his warning. Yet, the markets continued rapidly upward for another FOUR years. Shorting the high-flying stocks with negligible income in 1997 or 1998 would have been completely sensible. And it would have wiped you out, as you would have been years too early. It just proves the adage: "The markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." Today, the levels of (over-)investment compared to investment are even more extreme. But when is the time to call it?

▲

techblueberry 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Doesn’t that make it more irrational?