4 ms·

> If this is a bubble... The pop stage will be devastating... Why? It could be sudden. It could be slow and gradual. I've seen no reason it needs to be one ver

> If this is a bubble... The pop stage will be devastating... Why? It could be sudden. It could be slow and gradual. I've seen no reason it needs to be one versus the other.

tomrod 5mo ago
Because it is deliberately extracting cash from Mom and Pop into the robber baron's wallets?
- dragontamer 5mo ago
  Why would that pop the bubble? Robber Barrons existed from like 1860 through 1915 and extracted the wealth of many people, including Native American tribe lands. Like this shit can keep going until we decide enough is enough and actually change our society.
  - tmp10423288442 5mo ago
    Not related - many robber barons went bankrupt in the severe economic crashes of the time, such as the Panics of 1873 and 1893. The Gilded Age continued despite bubbles popping.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  Okay? Why does that mean a devastating pop?
  - vermilingua 5mo ago
    Where were you in 2008?
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      It would be karmic if fleecing led to financial crises. It doesn’t. You’ve taken N = 1 and extrapolated it wildly.
  - michaelmrose 5mo ago
    Because traditionally the pop is delayed while those who realized most of the gains attempt to offload the risk to other parties. Whether this works or not at some point it becomes an inevitable and self reenforcing feedback loop. Just investing less in risky things on the run up means you personally perform worse so even in known bubbles you don't see reasonable slow downs instead of disastrous pops.
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      > traditionally the pop is delayed while those who realized most of the gains attempt to offload the risk to other parties What? Source? Plenty of investment bubbles pop before the bag is passed. This thread involves a lot of people looking at something they don't like and presuming karmic forces will give them what they deserve. There is no reason these companies, even if massively overvalued, have to "pop." That's fundamentally different from e.g. the financial crisis, or the 2023 bank collapses, or even the dot-com bubble. Those did not have the ability to self correct. There was no slow deflation other than through a bailout.
      - marcus_holmes 5mo ago
        I'm genuinely curious why you say this is different from the dot-com bubble? As I see it, this is the exact same situation - wildly overvalued companies based on investor exuberance, the underlying business is not capable of supporting this kind of valuation. IPO tends to be the crunch point at which this overvaluation is exposed. Once exposed, the valuation correction spreads to other similar businesses quickly and the bubble pops. What's the self-correction ability that AI companies have?
        JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > genuinely curious why you say this is different from the dot-com bubble? A lot more revenue. Dot coms were going public pre revenue. And Anthropic is profitable. Both it and SpaceX wouldn’t be dependent on further stock sales to stay alive—that lets them weather a downturn.
  - csomar 5mo ago
    Once the liquidity is transferred, that's it? There is nothing there (datacenter in space, that dude is really smoking some serious stuff), so the money will be spent/transferred and then there is no revenue/new sources of money. It's the same scenario of a ponzi scheme. Everything looks fresh and fine until everyone realizes there is nothing in there.
burnte 5mo ago
Irrational exuberance rarely transitions to a rational drawn down. The minute the first selfish-actor flood-liquidates, everyone else will too. That's now runs work.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  [dead]
- chrisweekly 5mo ago
  but this isn't "irrational exuberance", literally everyone I know paying and kind of attention has "rational dread".
  - burnte 5mo ago
    In my opinion the amount of money poured into these companies is the definition of irrational exuberance. And even if you want to call it dread, once they start to deflate people will panic and flee.
    - chrisweekly 5mo ago
      Hmm. With respect, I disagree. When the term was first coined, the broader context was "Main St" (ie, retail) investors acting with apparently excessive optimism. Whereas the unfathomable sums being poured into AI by "Wall St" arguably stem from profound but simple greed, a scheme in which the uber-rich are forcing AI and the concomitant bubble risk down the throats of the general public. "Exuberance" has a significantly positive connotation, which in this case I find completely absent.
- hattmall 5mo ago
  But where else will people put their money?
  - thfuran 5mo ago
    I heard daffodils are where it's at.
bawolff 5mo ago
I mean, isn't the definition of a bubble that it pops quickly? If it slowly loses value over time, its not really a bubble.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > isn't the definition of a bubble that it pops quickly? There is no consistent definition of a bubble. We have no fundamental reason current valuations have to collapse suddenly.
  - bawolff 5mo ago
    Is there any definition of bubble that doesn't involve popping? That's literally the metaphor. > We have no fundamental reason current valuations have to collapse suddenly. I would agree, but i think that is just saying that the current situation is potentially not a bubble. Which may be true. We will only find out after the fact.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
      > Is there any definition of bubble that doesn't involve popping? I’ve seen it commonly used to refer to any period of high multiples.

> If this is a bubble... The pop stage will be devastating... Why? It could be sudden. It could be slow and gradual. I've seen no reason it needs to be one versus the other.

tomrod 5mo ago

Because it is deliberately extracting cash from Mom and Pop into the robber baron's wallets?

dragontamer 5mo ago
Why would that pop the bubble? Robber Barrons existed from like 1860 through 1915 and extracted the wealth of many people, including Native American tribe lands. Like this shit can keep going until we decide enough is enough and actually change our society.
- tmp10423288442 5mo ago
  Not related - many robber barons went bankrupt in the severe economic crashes of the time, such as the Panics of 1873 and 1893. The Gilded Age continued despite bubbles popping.
JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
Okay? Why does that mean a devastating pop?
- vermilingua 5mo ago
  Where were you in 2008?
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    It would be karmic if fleecing led to financial crises. It doesn’t. You’ve taken N = 1 and extrapolated it wildly.
- michaelmrose 5mo ago
  Because traditionally the pop is delayed while those who realized most of the gains attempt to offload the risk to other parties. Whether this works or not at some point it becomes an inevitable and self reenforcing feedback loop. Just investing less in risky things on the run up means you personally perform worse so even in known bubbles you don't see reasonable slow downs instead of disastrous pops.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > traditionally the pop is delayed while those who realized most of the gains attempt to offload the risk to other parties What? Source? Plenty of investment bubbles pop before the bag is passed. This thread involves a lot of people looking at something they don't like and presuming karmic forces will give them what they deserve. There is no reason these companies, even if massively overvalued, have to "pop." That's fundamentally different from e.g. the financial crisis, or the 2023 bank collapses, or even the dot-com bubble. Those did not have the ability to self correct. There was no slow deflation other than through a bailout.
    - marcus_holmes 5mo ago
      I'm genuinely curious why you say this is different from the dot-com bubble? As I see it, this is the exact same situation - wildly overvalued companies based on investor exuberance, the underlying business is not capable of supporting this kind of valuation. IPO tends to be the crunch point at which this overvaluation is exposed. Once exposed, the valuation correction spreads to other similar businesses quickly and the bubble pops. What's the self-correction ability that AI companies have?
      - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        > genuinely curious why you say this is different from the dot-com bubble? A lot more revenue. Dot coms were going public pre revenue. And Anthropic is profitable. Both it and SpaceX wouldn’t be dependent on further stock sales to stay alive—that lets them weather a downturn.
- csomar 5mo ago
  Once the liquidity is transferred, that's it? There is nothing there (datacenter in space, that dude is really smoking some serious stuff), so the money will be spent/transferred and then there is no revenue/new sources of money. It's the same scenario of a ponzi scheme. Everything looks fresh and fine until everyone realizes there is nothing in there.

burnte 5mo ago

Irrational exuberance rarely transitions to a rational drawn down. The minute the first selfish-actor flood-liquidates, everyone else will too. That's now runs work.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
[dead]
chrisweekly 5mo ago
but this isn't "irrational exuberance", literally everyone I know paying and kind of attention has "rational dread".
- burnte 5mo ago
  In my opinion the amount of money poured into these companies is the definition of irrational exuberance. And even if you want to call it dread, once they start to deflate people will panic and flee.
  - chrisweekly 5mo ago
    Hmm. With respect, I disagree. When the term was first coined, the broader context was "Main St" (ie, retail) investors acting with apparently excessive optimism. Whereas the unfathomable sums being poured into AI by "Wall St" arguably stem from profound but simple greed, a scheme in which the uber-rich are forcing AI and the concomitant bubble risk down the throats of the general public. "Exuberance" has a significantly positive connotation, which in this case I find completely absent.
hattmall 5mo ago
But where else will people put their money?
- thfuran 5mo ago
  I heard daffodils are where it's at.

bawolff 5mo ago

I mean, isn't the definition of a bubble that it pops quickly? If it slowly loses value over time, its not really a bubble.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> isn't the definition of a bubble that it pops quickly? There is no consistent definition of a bubble. We have no fundamental reason current valuations have to collapse suddenly.
- bawolff 5mo ago
  Is there any definition of bubble that doesn't involve popping? That's literally the metaphor. > We have no fundamental reason current valuations have to collapse suddenly. I would agree, but i think that is just saying that the current situation is potentially not a bubble. Which may be true. We will only find out after the fact.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > Is there any definition of bubble that doesn't involve popping? I’ve seen it commonly used to refer to any period of high multiples.