3 ms·

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

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.

hungryhobbit 5mo ago
Read history: people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > 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 5mo ago
    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 5mo ago
      > 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 5mo ago
        They're not profitable either, so the money has to come from somewhere, no?
        JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > 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 5mo ago
        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.
        dboreham 5mo ago
        If much of the money comes from passive funds, presumably the other stocks in those funds will need to be sold?
        JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > 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/f224.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20260319/html/f22...
        za_creature 5mo ago
        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].
- aurareturn 5mo ago
  Nasdaq is 5.4x higher now than peak dotcom. So just buy the dip if it actually crashes.
- Karrot_Kream 5mo ago
  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 5mo ago
  And people are right most of the time. For every actual bubble, there are easily a dozen "bubbles" that aren't in fact bubbles.
bunderbunder 5mo ago
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.
fnordpiglet 5mo ago
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.
lmm 5mo ago
> 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.
_fizz_buzz_ 5mo ago
In 2004 people were predicting that the real estate bubble would burst and then nothing happened. Until it did.
AlexCoventry 5mo ago
The headwinds are way worse now, though. Oil is choked, war is brewing, and corruption is at an all-time high.
lelanthran 5mo ago
> People keep predicting "house of cards" and keep being wrong. AI bubble was supposed to burst as far back as 2023. The bubble can't pop until after an IPO, and that doesn't mean "immediately after". You can't have a run on a privately held company.
Npovview 5mo ago
US markets will keep superpositiong S-curves upon S-curves upon S-curves. Just as Elon Musk does with his companies. Just ask Tesla/SpaceX bulls.
materiallie 5mo ago
Why did you reference "since 2009" like it was an eternity ago, when it's actually the most recent business cycle?

hungryhobbit 5mo ago

Read history: people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> 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 5mo ago
  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 5mo ago
    > 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 5mo ago
      They're not profitable either, so the money has to come from somewhere, no?
      - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > 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 5mo ago
        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.
        dboreham 5mo ago
        If much of the money comes from passive funds, presumably the other stocks in those funds will need to be sold?
        JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > 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/f224.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20260319/html/f22...
        za_creature 5mo ago
        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].
aurareturn 5mo ago
Nasdaq is 5.4x higher now than peak dotcom. So just buy the dip if it actually crashes.
Karrot_Kream 5mo ago
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 5mo ago
And people are right most of the time. For every actual bubble, there are easily a dozen "bubbles" that aren't in fact bubbles.

bunderbunder 5mo ago

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.

fnordpiglet 5mo ago

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.

lmm 5mo ago

> 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.

_fizz_buzz_ 5mo ago

In 2004 people were predicting that the real estate bubble would burst and then nothing happened. Until it did.

AlexCoventry 5mo ago

The headwinds are way worse now, though. Oil is choked, war is brewing, and corruption is at an all-time high.

lelanthran 5mo ago

> People keep predicting "house of cards" and keep being wrong. AI bubble was supposed to burst as far back as 2023. The bubble can't pop until after an IPO, and that doesn't mean "immediately after". You can't have a run on a privately held company.

Npovview 5mo ago

US markets will keep superpositiong S-curves upon S-curves upon S-curves. Just as Elon Musk does with his companies. Just ask Tesla/SpaceX bulls.

materiallie 5mo ago

Why did you reference "since 2009" like it was an eternity ago, when it's actually the most recent business cycle?