[billpatrianakos]

One sign we are in a tech bubble: People feel the need to explain why we're not. I'm not trying to be a smartass. Honestly, it seems like we're just all trying to convince each other there isn't a bubble. It's so simple to see and that's probably why no one sees it. We're in so deep that we look at everything but the obvious. We've got a billion tech companies that take funding first and decide how to monetize later. Most of them fail. Those that succeed still don't quite make it to figuring out how to monetize. In essence, we have a lot of neat toys using super cool tech that get funded but never quite get how to be a business in that investors seem to be the only source of their revenue. Eventually someone has to get paid back and if tech companies aren't making a buck and investors are being paid back eventually there's no one left to invest and the bottom falls out. It's more complicated than that but looking at the complexity is what tricks you into thinking the bubble isn't there.

[jayzee]

Do not understand the logic. For example, I could say that the proof that God exists is the amount of time atheists spend in explaining how God does not exist etc.

[bunderbunder]

It's in the way it's being done. The argument for why we should be cautious is straightforward. It consists of simply pointing out that people seem to be spending a lot of money on assets for which the price has been rising rapidly, and they're doing it based on a soft thesis of simply assuming that a past trend will continue into the future wrapped in a thin candy shell of hype.

A compelling counter-argument to the assertion that people are overvaluing tech would be a clear explanation of why the prices being spent on tech companies now are justified by compelling reasons to believe that those companies can produce value for shareholders by either delivering a portion of profits to the owner's pockets or by increasing the fundamental value of the company. This explanation would of course need to be finished off by a case for why the amount of value that can be delivered to shareholders is in proportion to price at which those shares are trading hands.

On the other hand, folks churning out lists of reasons why "this time it's different" that are peppered with buzzwords like 'transformative', but never getting around to directly addressing the actual question at hand in any sort of articulate manner, have been something of a mascot for the past few market bubbles. Consequently, seeing them coming out of the woodwork yet again does not inspire confidence. No, it's not proof that we're in a bubble. But it takes some heroic naivete to see that behavior and not think, "Hmm, now where have I seen people acting like this before?"

[TheEzEzz]

Articles explaining why we are in a tech bubble pop up constantly. This is the first article that I can recall in the last half year taking the opposite position.