3 ms·

It seems it's Jan 2000 all over now. Reading old comments from that time, it seemed obvious in late 1999 yet not everyone got it. For example check out the one

by frik 11y ago

It seems it's Jan 2000 all over now. Reading old comments from that time, it seemed obvious in late 1999 yet not everyone got it. For example check out the one and two star review comments (1999-2001) on this page: http://www.amazon.com/Internet-Bubble-The-Anthony-Perkins/product-reviews/0066640008/ http://www.amazon.com/Internet-Bubble-The-Anthony-Perkins/pr...

hueving 11y ago
The bad reviews on that book seem legitimate (e.g. Doomsdaying without specifics so it's difficult to pin down their point). Anyone can constantly publish that the market is in a bubble and then just wait until it goes down and claim they were right. It's completely worthless in that regard because early doomsdaying are worse for investors than getting into the market.
- frik 11y ago
  In hindsight it's always easy. You know what, the book authors wrote the book in 1999 for the general public, the average joe who bought tech stock without much knowledge. Many insiders from the valley knew about the bubble, yet your grandma in Texas never heard about it in 1999 or Jan/Feb2000. That's why that book helped lot's of people to get out of it, right before the crash - it doesn't matter when the crash happen, a few months before is better than a months too late, isn't it? Well the one amd two star reviewers thought they were clever or were heavily invested insiders (like you/other downvoter now?). Petty for them that those probably lost their money. It's always good to learn from history.
eggie 11y ago
I enjoy this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1FS0OYG08O1UD/ref=cm_cr_pr_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0066640008 http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1FS0OYG08O1UD/ref... > This book was a huge disappointment. The authors try to draw parallels between the current high-tech/Internet phenomenon and previous "manias." However, their rational is very poor. As an example, they say the Internet Bubble will burst just like biotechnology did. What they fail to mention is that Internet usage and penetration has grown faster than anything in the history of mankind. Furthermore, Internet companies are posting revenues and mainly losing money because it is a market share game right now. Biotech companies, on the other hand, never had any revenue until they had a drug on the market. They only focus on the negatives and don't provide both sides of the story. This type of faulty reasoning is why I believe your money would be better spent on other Internet books. We are right back to the "share game". Although profits are in a better place, and there do appear to be strong winners today, the companies making money (Google and Facebook) are doing so at the expense of companies who are losing money ta make market share, which makes the whole thing feel like a giant house of cards.

by frik 11y ago

hueving 11y ago

The bad reviews on that book seem legitimate (e.g. Doomsdaying without specifics so it's difficult to pin down their point). Anyone can constantly publish that the market is in a bubble and then just wait until it goes down and claim they were right. It's completely worthless in that regard because early doomsdaying are worse for investors than getting into the market.

frik 11y ago
In hindsight it's always easy. You know what, the book authors wrote the book in 1999 for the general public, the average joe who bought tech stock without much knowledge. Many insiders from the valley knew about the bubble, yet your grandma in Texas never heard about it in 1999 or Jan/Feb2000. That's why that book helped lot's of people to get out of it, right before the crash - it doesn't matter when the crash happen, a few months before is better than a months too late, isn't it? Well the one amd two star reviewers thought they were clever or were heavily invested insiders (like you/other downvoter now?). Petty for them that those probably lost their money. It's always good to learn from history.

eggie 11y ago

I enjoy this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1FS0OYG08O1UD/ref=cm_cr_pr_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0066640008 http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1FS0OYG08O1UD/ref... > This book was a huge disappointment. The authors try to draw parallels between the current high-tech/Internet phenomenon and previous "manias." However, their rational is very poor. As an example, they say the Internet Bubble will burst just like biotechnology did. What they fail to mention is that Internet usage and penetration has grown faster than anything in the history of mankind. Furthermore, Internet companies are posting revenues and mainly losing money because it is a market share game right now. Biotech companies, on the other hand, never had any revenue until they had a drug on the market. They only focus on the negatives and don't provide both sides of the story. This type of faulty reasoning is why I believe your money would be better spent on other Internet books. We are right back to the "share game". Although profits are in a better place, and there do appear to be strong winners today, the companies making money (Google and Facebook) are doing so at the expense of companies who are losing money ta make market share, which makes the whole thing feel like a giant house of cards.