If everybody uses the term "bubble" in a way that doesn't match the author, then the author's definition of "bubble" is wrong. He even implies that the 90s dotcom bubble was not a bubble, just perfectly rational market forces at the time...
And the author conveniently ignores the self-inflationary feedback loop of nvidia striking deals with companies to buy chips with minimum-usage guarantees.
I want to give the author credit for some reasonable statements in this piece, but I can't support his through-line. I agree some companies can/should make wild swings for a percent chance at a huge upside. But when the hype is coupled to the investments, and then investments are coupled to the hype - it's a bubble
Can anyone point me to some good meta-analysis of financial opinion pieces like this? I suspect the majority of them are just trying to nudge the markets based on privately held positions, but has this been studied?
And the author conveniently ignores the self-inflationary feedback loop of nvidia striking deals with companies to buy chips with minimum-usage guarantees.
I want to give the author credit for some reasonable statements in this piece, but I can't support his through-line. I agree some companies can/should make wild swings for a percent chance at a huge upside. But when the hype is coupled to the investments, and then investments are coupled to the hype - it's a bubble
Can anyone point me to some good meta-analysis of financial opinion pieces like this? I suspect the majority of them are just trying to nudge the markets based on privately held positions, but has this been studied?