Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Dot-Com Bubble v2.0?

Posted by Cliff on Wed Oct 18, 2006 06:38 PM
from the oh-no-not-again dept.
eldavojohn wonders: "With the recent acquisition of YouTube by Google, there has been a lot of speculation (on both Slashdot & The Toronto Star) that we are nearing the second economic bubble created largely in part by growth in the digital sector. While one may be able to debate that the revenue from advertising and sales can indeed back this growth, are we headed towards the second bubble and, if so, how hard is it going to pop? Keep in mind that popular voodoo economic theory has attributed the first bubble phenomenon to 'a combination of rapidly increasing stock prices, individual speculation in stocks, and widely available venture capital.' I think we're experiencing all those, although it is not as flagrant as it was during the first bubble. What do you think?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

by
by
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • OMG! v2.0 (Score:4, Funny)

    by creimer (824291) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @06:42PM (#16494353) Homepage
    It's "Dot Com v2.0" and no one took out a patent?! Where's my attorney!
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Actually the best predictor is how many Herman Miller chairs your office has.
      • Thats not true at all. They are only about $500 dollars and they last a good bit longer than your cheap $100 chair. Not to mention they are quite configurable and worth the money. If they allow people to get more comfortable and work more efficiently what does it matter? $500 is just a drop in the bucket for the cost of your average tech worker making $55,000 / year. Same with dual monitors etc. It makes people feel appreciated and they will very likely be more happy if you show them you care. Or you can re
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          $500 is just a drop in the bucket for the cost of your average tech worker making $55,000 / year.
          $55000 is probably what your average tech worker's family healthcare premiums cost these days... now let's hope that chair's extra ergonomic.
        • Except...

          I bought a rather nice chair for around a $100 nearly four years ago. It's still in great shape and still as comfy as ever.

          I had to look around for one that was built nicely *roomy too*, but it was worth the time and testing.

          Anyhow, sure you could blow $500 on a good chair or put in some diligence and save a good bit.

          • Angry Chair
            Sitting On An Angry Chair
            Angry Walls That Steal The Air
            Stomach Hurts And I Don't Care

            What Do I See Across The Way
            See Myself Molded In Clay
            Stares At Me, Yeah I'm Afraid
            Changing The Shape Of His Face

            Candles Red I Have A Pair
            Shadows Dancing Everywhere
            Burning On The Angry Chair

            Little Boy Made A Mistake
            Pink Cloud Has Now Turned To Grey
            All That I Want Is To Play
            Get On Your Knees, Time To Pray Boy

            I Don't Mind, Yeah
            I Dont Mind, I-I-I
            Lost My Mind, Yeah
            But
      • Re:OMG! v2.0 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Xeger (20906) <slashdot@tracker ... DENet minus poet> on Thursday October 19 2006, @01:40AM (#16497881) Homepage
        When I first went to intern with the company I'm working for now, they accidentally gave me an $800 Steelcase chair reserved for full-time senior engineers. They felt bad about the mistake, so they let me have it for the entire summer.

        That very winter, I came back to to a project for them, only to find a cheap POS "executive office chair" at my desk. Yes, it was leather; yes, it was very flashy looking and fit well with my pressboard laminate desk -- but it wasn't very comfortable to sit in.

        After four weeks of working 12-16 hours a day sitting in that damned chair (what, I didn't mention this was a tech job?) my spine was twisted in knots, my neck ached constantly, and my elbows hurt persistently. My productivity dropped essentially to 0, I had to see a chiropractor on a weekly basis and I chose to work from a noisy dorm room most of the time rather than deal with that chair.

        Eventually, I took up the issue with the HR department who instantly caved and gave me back my fancy Steelcase chair. To them, $800 is a huge bargain when you consider the cost of disability payments, surgery to alleviate carpal tunnel synrome, etc.

        I've had that chair for four years running now; I don't work quite as hard now as I did that first winter, but I haven't had a single back complaint, I'm free of carpal tunnel syndrome despite being a constant keyboard user, and I'm rarely the worse for wear despite spending all day in this chair, five days a week.

        As a software developer, your chair, desk, keyboard and mouse are the physical tools of your trade. A carpenter doesn't skimp on his hammer; an assassin doesn't carry around a water gun. Why should *you* suffer with inferior tools?
  • by dsginter (104154) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @06:42PM (#16494355)
    Methink's Taco's VA Linux stock [yahoo.com] hasn't quite rebounded yet.

    Does anyone know if any of the slashdot ownership was realized as cold, hard cash or did it all go down the pipes and stay there?

    I'm waiting for the third bubble, myself.
  • by Jazz-Masta (240659) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @06:42PM (#16494359) Homepage
    Seems to me the Internet is starting to mimic other economic systems, such that it is now subject to the whole boom and bust cycle. Just that they call it a bubble. There will be many of them in the years to come.
    • I agree- the bubble idea just makes it seem wierd. Unique. In reality, capitalism itself just isn't stable- it fails to have enough information transfer to become so.

      Anybody know of a stock trading BBS based on slashcode? In such a database may be a solution....
  • If by bubble you mean a time of ecenomic growth, then yes we are headed there.

    The economy is on the upswing, and people (perhaps minus slashdotters) are generally optimistic.

    It is very possible to have ecenomic growth without a hyperinflated economy resulting in the proverbial bubble. After the economic growth will be a time of economic slowing and finally a recession of the economy.

    You can count on it, although unfortunately you can't set your watch by it. Timing of the whole thing is still not very prec
    • It is very possible to have ecenomic growth without a hyperinflated economy resulting in the proverbial bubble. After the economic growth will be a time of economic slowing and finally a recession of the economy.

      A recession to me indicates a failure of the market to correctly predict fair prices, in other words, hyperinflation. So what's the difference between economic growth and a bubble? And is the optimism ever really justified in the long run, or are we always fated to have hyperinflationary markets
    • Re:Economic Growth (Score:5, Insightful)

      by argoff (142580) * on Wednesday October 18 2006, @07:23PM (#16494829)
      If by bubble you mean a time of ecenomic growth, then yes we are headed there.

      First off, the economy is not on the upswing. While we don't seem to have another dot.com bubble, we absolutely have a housing bubble and that is worse! If your stock tanks, you still aren't making monthly payments on it and it's a lot more liquid. The record low savings rates and record high debt rates are not symptoms of a healthy economy. Neither is the account deficit over 6%. So far the US is the only country in history to have that high of an account deficit and not have a currency collapse. The fact that it is increasing rapidly is not good. (BTW, I know it's political season, so let me just say it's not Bush's fault, but structural - for people who think I'm bashing Bush)

      It is very possible to have ecenomic growth without a hyperinflated economy resulting in the proverbial bubble. ....

      Not in the US, not since 1911, the year of the federal reserve act. You can't keep printing up money and loaning it into the economy and expect nothing bad to happen. In fact, the efficiency of the information age means that when the money passes thru, that adjustment will be far more extreme, not less extreme. The worst part is that the Fed thinks they have lernt the lesson of the great depression - that the solution is more liquidity. No it's not! It will just change it from a great depression to a hyperinflationary great depression. I don't think people have any idea what they're in for.

      Why is everyone so sureal. Any look at the numbers is just terrible, do people understand that the dollar can't make it as a global reserve currency for more than a few more years and likely can't make it as a currency at all within the next decade? Can your family afford a debt of about 480K that is increasing at the rate of about 30K per year? Well, between all the obligations and systemic debt it already must.

      • The worst part is that the Fed thinks they have lernt the lesson of the great depression - that the solution is more liquidity.
        Don't forget the FDIC. If you think hyperinflation is better than deflation, tell me what happens to the average indebted american when wages decline, unemployment rises, and yet the mortgage, student load, credit card and car payments don't decrease? Ooooh yeah, that's bad.
        • Re:Economic Growth (Score:5, Interesting)

          by argoff (142580) * on Wednesday October 18 2006, @09:15PM (#16495871)
          In a hyperinflationary depression the economy reaches a point where investors won't invest in businesses, so they then put all their money into commodities. This causes commodities to skyrocket, unemployment to go up, and pay to be pressured down. So everything goes up in price except for pay and profit. That makes the defaults on debt worse, makes the drive to commodities even more, causing a vicious circle. This happened in the late 70's in the US and we were able to break out of it by offering 21% interest on bonds to get investors to stop dumping cash. But this time a 21% prime will rip the US economy to shreds. BTW, over the last 5 years commodities have trippled while pay has done nearly nothing.
  • by PepeGSay (847429) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @06:47PM (#16494417)
    Rises and falls in every sector happen all the time. We don't need to over analyze every rise in the market like it's the second coming. Things will inflate and deflate over time in all areas. The fact is the first dot com bubble burst wasn't that big of a deal. It's not like we had soup lines. Some *speculators* lost money. Enterpreneurs in *speculative* businesses lost their jobs. Really, it had not delitirious effect other than to correct the market and kick out some losers that needed to be kicked out anyway.
    • OTOH, it got pretty large before common sense returned to the land. There was an overall drop of 50% in capitalization of public firms. But I otherwise agree. The dotcom burst wasn't the problem, but having things get that out of hand was a real problem. In comparison, I just don't see a similar level of insanity going on. Doesn't make sense to keep expecting another bubble burst when the markets just aren't whacked out.
    • "Not a huge deal"? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SuperBanana (662181) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @07:20PM (#16494781)

      The fact is the first dot com bubble burst wasn't that big of a deal. It's not like we had soup lines.

      Wow, talk about revisionism. The first bubble burst was HUGE deal; dozens of major banks grossly violated their 'chinese wall' policies while underwriting the IPOs of clients and looked the other way when internet companies were engaging the shadiest accounting practices known to man. Companies swapped "shares" and both counted it as revenue based on projected stock prices, for example. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs in "layoffs", and it had a massive ripple effect in places like SF. The crash and delisting of hundreds of "internet" companies destroyed "investor confidence" on the stock market, and affected all manner of investors, from individuals to massive retirement accounts.

      Christ, man! It was enough to destroy Arthur Anderson Consulting. Why do you think they're known as Accenture now? Having your top officers lambasted by Congressional investigators for conspiracy, fraud, etc on national TV doesn't exactly bolster confidence in a business where clients are trusting you...

      • Christ, man! It was enough to destroy Arthur Anderson Consulting. Why do you think they're known as Accenture now?

        Funny, I thought it was Andersen (busload of kiddies) that named itself Accenture.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I think you're underestimating the impact.

      Back in 1997 if you had told me that big and bad US West would be bought out in a few years by the tiny little 1 year old company down the street, Qwest, I would have laughed you out of my office

      But then Qwest made a bunch of money during the bubble and took US West by force in one of the decade's most unanticipated and disconcerting hostile takeovers.

      This doesn't prove that the bubble was deleterious, and correcting the market certainly isn't a deleterious effect,
    • At first glance, I don't see why this is being described as the return of a tech-industry bubble. What's happening now is an ADVERTISING-INDUSTRY bubble.
  • During the first bubble, we had wild stock prices. Seeing that most of the new back of dot com's are not public, are we making this claim simply based on the purchase prices of a handful of private companies? Seriously, its nothing like the dot com boom of 2000, where hundreds of shell companies went for their golden IPO.
  • ...that there *was* something behind the Internet boom, otherwise it never would have happened. If investors (Venture and otherwise) make more informed decisions this time, there's a far better chance at a sustainable market.

    In other words, you need a product (*bang* no more Pets.com), you need a business plan (*bang* no more SimDesk), and you need an idea that isn't terrible from the outset (*bang* there goes "MyLackey.com").
  • by ackthpt (218170) * on Wednesday October 18 2006, @06:50PM (#16494451) Homepage Journal

    During the first bubble the hubris was so thick in the Silicon Valley air you could feel it. People around you virtually hummed with it. And like The Emperor's New Clothes, if you actually looked at some of the shiny bits you'd notice some what people where trying to sell was utter shite, a scam, not worth a penny, yet people bought their stock on IPO and it all went nuts. There was 'the big strategy', to develope something Microsoft, Oracle or Cisco didn't have and would want and to trumpet it all over the place and hope one of these big companies would make you an instant millionaire by buying you out. Didn't always work.

    Now I think most of what is going on in this bubble actually cuts the mustard in the ledgers. It pretty much has to. Too many (ad)venture capitalists got burned and they're a bit more careful now.

  • by Animats (122034) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @06:51PM (#16494463) Homepage

    Last time, it was mostly companies going public. This time, it's companies heavily funded with venture capital, and the companies are then bought by other companies.

    But it's definitely a bubble. Way too many companies are chasing the same pool of advertising money.

    And, unlike Bubble 1.0, most of these new companies don't really do very much. Or even stuff that hasn't been done before.

    As I wrote in another article, "social networking" sites have a life cycle. EZboard peaked mid 2003. Nerve peaked early 2002. Bondage.com peaked mid-2003. Tribe peaked early 2006. Xianz (the "Christian Myspace") peaked in spring 2006. Friendster peaked twice, once in late 2005 and again in mid-2006, but that's an unusual pattern. Usually, once they peak, it's downhill after that. Myspace has flattened and looks like it's about to peak. This works just like nightclubs; they become hot, they grow, they get too popular, they get overrun, they decline, they hang on, but nobody cares.

    YouTube is terribly vunerable to the RIAA. Once somebody builds a tool to check audio on YouTube against RIAA licensed material, they're going to get notice-and-takedown orders by the ton.

    • Last time, it was mostly companies going public. This time, it's companies heavily funded with venture capital, and the companies are then bought by other companies.
      Actually, it was a bit of a mix of both - Take a look at Geert Lovink's Critical Internet Culture in Transition: venture capitalists fueled the IPO offerings.
    • Where I live, a couple people have hung onto to very successful nightclubs with years and years of "staying power" by re-inventing them every so often. One of them had a rather unique strategy of closing down at the end of the summer, transforming into a different type of club, and opening back up again until the next spring/summer, when it again closed and transformed back into its "beach club" motif.

      Another one has changed names and themes every couple years, when the old one got too "dull" and "passe".

      I
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        re-inventing them every so often.

        Area, the hottest nightclub in NYC for part of the 1980s, did a complete redecoration and theme change every six weeks. That kept it a hot club for years.

        But redesigning a web site doesn't have the same effect. Tribe just did that. (New! Web 2.0! Now you can rearrange your home page!) One of most active tribes is now "Tribe.net bug reports". Oops.

  • No bubble (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rob Kaper (5960) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @06:52PM (#16494465) Homepage
    There was no dotcom bubble and there won't be a new one. We had a good economy with over-the-top entrepreneurs. It topped, scaled down and weeding selected the sensible business. It happens all the time, in all industries and sectors. New shops open town in good times and silly ideas go bankrupt in bad times. It may look overwhelming because we're so close to the source, but I'm sure the average resident in my neighbourhood isn't even aware of the dotcom tale. It was that insignificant in the grand scheme of economical cycles.
    • There was no dotcom bubble and there won't be a new one.

      There was a tremendous bubble. I was there. I did work for companies that were almost entirely virtual. There was no "there" there. It was all hot air. I know plenty of people who suddenly had fantastic jobs and were living a lavish lifestyle, only to be out on the street looking for a job when the boom dropped on the bubble. Bay Area traffic noticeably thinned for at least two or three years. It definitely was a bubble, and when it popped, the eff

  • by Wills (242929) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @06:52PM (#16494471)
    The more people talk about "the stock market bubble" and upcoming crash, the more people start expecting it and theb selling their stocks, which makes it more likely to happen.
  • by Shados (741919) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @06:52PM (#16494473)
    We're really straight in the middle of the second bubble. Its different than the first in a way, mind you, but a lot of companies have while projects and dreams thanks to the "newfound" power of information technologies (like all the web 2.0 crap). Some work, many don't, and honestly, I don't see how long they'll be able to stay afloat pumping all that money in these projects. Just as an anecdotal reference: I put my resume on Monster 2 weeks ago. I only have an associate degree, and a few years experience in .NET and Ajax. I did not apply -anywhere-. Yet, since I put my resume up, I have gotten at least 2 interview offers per -day- (not counting weekends) for so called "Web 2.0" projects of all kinds, all wilders one than the next.
  • by mcrbids (148650) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @06:56PM (#16494517) Journal
    WARNING: This post sounds remarkably like something written in about 1998. It's still true.

    The "digital marketplace" is fundamentally different than the standard "meatspace" environment. In cyberspace, product carries no mass. In many cases, intellectual property is "production grade" the moment it's written. EG: PHP code. There's no duplication cost, virtually non-existent distribution cost, and the result can be seen/used by millions overnight, if you have some servers to handle it.

    Note: the servers to handle "millions" can be surprisingly cheap, and getting cheaper every day

    So, while it takes an auto company years, and eleventy billion dollars to come out with a new line of cars, it takes maybe 2-5 guys consisting of a decent programmer, a few salespeople, and a book-keeper armed with a few thousand bux to develop a product usable by millions, even if they are working day jobs to pay rent.

    So this means that the boom/bust cycle can happen in 2-3 years rather than 2-3 decades.

    Get used to it - it's only going to accelerate from here. Ever heard of the technology singularity? [wikipedia.org]

    It's coming.
    • As a part of the abstract "THE ECONOMY," what happens here affects what happens in "meatspace." If economics is the study of resource allocation, then the most precious resource in the new "information" economy is not information; rather, it is attention. Physical commodities are abundant - so much so that you can't turn on a newscast without hearing someone bitching about rampant comsumerisn - what is lacking is the human attention needed to make sense of the constant barrage of information. The problem
    • In many cases, intellectual property is "production grade" the moment it's written. EG: PHP code.

      You are dead wrong, but you aren't going to believe otherwise until you get burned. The optimism of youth may cost you a month of no sleep; maybe it will cost you your first mortgage.

      The only way to tell is when, five years down the road, you reread what you wrote and find yourself laughing...or crying.
  • Low savings rate, high deficit (as % of GDP the US deficit may be ok but it's a lot none the less), declining dollar, slowing real estate market. Of course these are indicators of an economy slowing down, not a 'dot com bubble'.
  • Baby Boomers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2006, @07:15PM (#16494721)
    Baby Boomers all the way. The boomer demographic is the real bubble underlying stock prices, housing prices, etc. Those folks are in their peak earning years, and there are a lot of them. They are pumping HUGE amounts of money into 401Ks, pension funds, you name it. When they start dying, getting sick, retiring, the flow of money will reverse. They will be selling houses and moving into assisted living and nursing homes. They will be taking money out of their 401k instead of putting it in.

    Just because the dot-com bubble popped didn't cause these people to stop trying to squirrel money away for retirement. And since they never really saved the way they should, they're trying to make up for lost time by speculating in stocks. So the irrational exhuberance continues. Eventually, though, it will stop. And when it stops, the bubble will collapse in a very very big way.

    The fallout will involve all these folks whining about how the next generation should pump more money into SS so they can afford the affluent lifestyle to which they've grown accustomed. Screw 'em. The most irresponsible generation decided to give their life savings to the pinstriped crooks on Wall Street. That's their problem, not mine.

    Baby boomers are the big white elephant in the room that everyone pretends they can't see. Instead we have to endure all manner of ridiculous handwaving BS about new economies yada yada yada. Phghght. What a bunch of crap.
  • I think that it is quite possible the YouTube purchase was over-valuated.

    However, the problem is that the market has no useful mechanisms to properly evaluate the true worth of future technologies.

    They could be insanely great - legendary.

    Or they could be really lame.

    So, trying to predict future cash flow and growth at the beginning of a company with a new technology is mostly a crap shoot.

    One good rule is - don't buy into a rise. It's better to put most of your money in an index fund (Euro stocks mix with
  • The new bubble is alive and very well. It's not in the software development industry, per se.

    It's the medical industry right now. It's the thing to do if you're going to college. Become a pharmacist, x-ray or ultra sound tech or some other skilled position in a hospital and earn a very healthy living.

    Of course, medical software is a huge industry right now as well.

    But basically with the supply of old people getting larger and larger it makes sense that the medical industry is really in a boom right now.

    H
  • Can't wait (Score:4, Insightful)

    by twistedcain (924116) on Wednesday October 18 2006, @07:42PM (#16494999)
    The system needs a good flushing. The web (and tech in general) is a mess of useless, pointless crap. Thousands if not millions of websites offering pretty much the same thing. Good examples would be the youtube clones, youtube itself being one of course. One good blog to every 1,000,000 poorly slapped together ones. Useless Bookmark/social sites like bluedot. Webmasterworld, where 500 good question/answers have been repeated 5 million times. Digg, a place to visit adsense filled blogs with one or two lines of information and a link to the actual source of information, and never worry about missing one of these adsense filled blog posts, it will be repeated on the front page at least 10 times a day. Not even going to talk about MySpace and the clone army the venture capitalists will be sold into creating.

    As for tech, quit cock-teasing us and put together a phone with wireless internet, camera, mp3 player, video player, video recorder, gps, and 3d gaming. Get rid of the psp, gameboy, DS, ipod, palm, blackberry, blueberry, boysenberry, and so on.

    A bubble burst only effects the crappy businesses who use copycat ideas and whose only purpose was to make a quick buck. Good-bye and good riddence.
  • .... 'a combination of rapidly increasing stock prices, individual speculation in stocks, and widely available venture capital.' ....

    1. Where are the "rapidly increasing stock prices"? Look at practically any .com NASDAQ stock that isn't Google and you won't find it. Most .com companies have had their stock languish. Look at Yahoo! Still meeting quarterly expectations, yet the stock hasn't budged in years, even with their popular Answers service, even with their Web 2.0 acquisitions. Stuck in neutral, like
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      They provided a seemless entertainment through video at a time when TV cost too much, and movies were not all that great for the money. By over supplying a high demand they catapulted themselves into the checks and balances situation where they are now in. They beat both TV and movies and bittorrent to the fruit punch, the sweet spot so to speak. Instant on TV like entertainment that was both creative and more down to earth. Its like jackass streaming in real time almost. Its not pay per view but in the
    • I think the primary thing that made them take off was their interface put forward to their contributors (uploaders). You can upload a variety of formats, and your video is ready in a matter of minutes. Myself, I have uploaded several 30 to 60 second clips in MPEG format, each weighing in at 10-20 MB, thinking nothing of compression or conversion. YouTube slurps them up with ease, and puts them into their Flash player with no problems.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Interesting question, and the answer is most likely far too simple for most bussiness executives to comprehend. I would attribute youtube's success to two simple, but important factors. One, they had a good-clean user interface, unlike similair publicly uploaded video sites. And secondly, and more importantly, they enabled even the most basic computer users to easily copy direct URL links to certain videos, essentially turning individual users into advertisers through social networking sites like "myspace
    • IMHO YouTube just plain sucks. On Google Video you can at least download the damn things... You know, so you can bring funny videos to friends without a broadband connection (or no internet connection at all) or just plain stop wasting bandwidth watching the funniest ones over and over again. Not to mention the picture quality is better downloaded than streamed.
    • This is the philosophy of Buffet, the second richest person in the world. It is correct if you are willing to wait. But those who want fast results have to accept higher risk, as usual.
    • The real trick is to find fundamentally solid companies that are currently out of favor, and buy and hold them long enough for the company to rebound.
      Thank you, Mr. Buffett. Could you spare a billion for my hot startup?
    • Beware of buying a stock just because everyone tells you it's popular and the price is rising. Chances are good you're already too late.

            Unless you're a sharp day-trader (evil grin).