| ▲ | paulpauper 4 hours ago |
| People keep predicting "house of cards" and keep being wrong. AI bubble was supposed to burst as far back as 2023. When was the last time since 2009 there was a $500+ billion tech valuation that lost 90% or more? After a certain point , 100% market penetration is achieved and these products become mainstream and profitability follows. See Uber and Tesla for examples. |
|
| ▲ | bunderbunder 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The old saying goes, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. I’m not necessarily expecting a crash any time soon. (But we average a major correction, what? every 8 years? So if you keep predicting one long enough you will eventually have been right all along.) But I do feel comfortable saying OpenAI and Anthropic are overpriced. For more or less the same reason Cisco was overpriced in the late ‘90s. It’s not that what they were making wasn’t valuable; it’s that we got out over our skis a bit over how much of it the world could actually manage to consume in the immediate future. |
|
| ▲ | lmm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > After a certain point , 100% market penetration is achieved and these products become mainstream and profitability follows. See Uber and Tesla for examples. Groupon got to pretty much 100% penetration, still crashed and burned right after IPO. I think Zynga followed a similar trajectory. |
|
| ▲ | AlexCoventry 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The headwinds are way worse now, though. Oil is choked, war is brewing, and corruption is at an all-time high. |
|
| ▲ | hungryhobbit 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Read history: people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't. |
| |
| ▲ | Karrot_Kream 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is one of those arguments that is so vacuous you can apply it to anything and always be right. > "There's no way you'll hurt yourself walking to the living room" > "Read history: people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't." | |
| ▲ | olalonde 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And people are right most of the time. For every actual bubble, there are easily a dozen "bubbles" that aren't in fact bubbles. | |
| ▲ | aurareturn 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Nasdaq is 5.4x higher now than peak dotcom. So just buy the dip if it actually crashes. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't History is also replete with people constantly predicting collapses that don't come. Timing the market is very hard with numbers, it's total nonsense if one is just going off vibes. | | |
| ▲ | za_creature 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Most bank runs tend to be driven by vibes, not numbers though. The good news is that these folks seem to be in possession of a vibe-rator. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > bank runs Anthropic, SpaceX and OpenAI are not banks. (Also, we had the largest bank runs in American history three years ago. The ordinary American barely noticed.) | | |
| ▲ | za_creature 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | They're not profitable either, so the money has to come from somewhere, no? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the money has to come from somewhere, no? Yes. Equity investors. The ones who buy hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars of American stocks a quarter. | | |
| ▲ | za_creature 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | And these equity-investors, do they use their own money to buy the (presumably non-voting) stocks? Cause if that's the case, I see no reason for a government bailout should things go south. Nobody's pension would be affected by some private investor losing money on a bad investment. But if that's not the case, then someone somewhere along the chain is acting as a bank, subject to a vibe-driven run. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > these equity-investors, do they use their own money to buy the (presumably non-voting) stocks? Yes [1]. > Nobody's pension would be affected by some private investor losing money on a bad investment ...pensions also invest in the stock market. > if that's not the case, then someone somewhere along the chain is acting as a bank, subject to a vibe-driven run You're confusing deeply unrelated concepts. Whether or not someone who loses money is politically sympathetic has nothing to do with whether they're at risk of a bank run. [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20260319/html/f22... | | |
| ▲ | za_creature an hour ago | parent [-] | | I made no mention of anyone being politically sympathetic or otherwise. A private investor is _private_ and thus not subject to a government bailout. The argument for government bailouts used to be that "grandpa would lose his pension", I merely stated the terms that would make this non-applicable. If pensions invest in the stock market, then they are de-facto acting as a bank. And last I checked, in the land of the free, you get to withdraw your 401k should you vibe with the decision to do so [please don't do this based on this post alone]. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > A private investor is _private_ and thus not subject to a government bailout What does this mean? Who do you think benefits from a bailout? > If pensions invest in the stock market Pensions are private investors. And pensions invest in all kinds of things. Plenty are already shareholders in these companies. > last I checked, in the land of the free, you get to withdraw your 401k should you vibe with the decision to do so This is a non sequitur. Nobody disputed this. And 401(k)s are not pensions. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | dboreham 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If much of the money comes from passive funds, presumably the other stocks in those funds will need to be sold? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | fnordpiglet 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If note the dotcom boom lasted from about 1995 until 2000. Housing bubble longer. Theres no time table on when the bubble bursts, and the web didn’t die and neither did housing when the burst happened. It is just a reset and consolidation of overtly excessive speculation. It’s not like the bust leads to an end of civilization. |
|
| ▲ | _fizz_buzz_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| In 2004 people were predicting that the real estate bubble would burst and then nothing happened. Until it did. |
