While David's argument is interesting, how would his claims be falsified? The economy is a noisy mess of contemporaneous booms and busts. What we typically ca

While David's argument is interesting, how would his claims be falsified? The economy is a noisy mess of contemporaneous booms and busts. What we typically call a "bubble" is a boom that lasts long enough that the bust is socially noteworthy. What if the information age is simply arriving faster and faster? Parents and grandparents are now buying tablets and laptops, uploading photos, liking wall posts, etc. There could be a huge shift toward the digital economy even if no bubble is occurring. How many wall posts result in a greeting card not sent, paper not manufactured, trees not felled, shipped, and processed? What other efficiencies are occurring to divert so much capital to information tech? Most of the technologies that are getting the most money are things that save people serious time/money/effort. This is equivalent to big dollars. So not only should capital be diverted from other industries, but certain existing ones become more valuable -- photo finishing has more value when you are sending in 30 favorite pics chosen from 1000 digital photos you took, rather than sending in a roll of film and hoping that a few out of the 24 on the roll turned out as expected. Travel has more value when you can use yelp to find great restaurants, AirBnB to find the perfect lodging at a great price, and Facebook to reconnect with old friends who it turns out live there. Technology brings value to so many areas, both expected and unexpected. This is why capital is flowing. And it will continue to flow. Yes there are meta factors such as monetary policy that impact the cost of credit and to some extent influence the risk-appetites of investors, but I think that's likely to be a small fraction of what we're seeing. The reason it's less obvious to us is b/c we've lived in this world of tech for at least 5-10 years before the rest of society started to arrive.