The Media as Stockpickers

A certain defunct pundit (to whom I won’t link) has a  typically silly screed up today about the existence of a bubble in technology. He’s wrong, of course, but I’d rather touch on something else. He opens by saying this:

Every single person working in the media today who experienced the dot-com bubble in 1999 to 2000 believes that we are going through the exact same process and can expect the exact same results—a bust.

While lots of people, including me, are bullish on tech through the rest of 2007 — no subprime exposure, an uptick in corporate spending, etc. — the preceding quote is officially the single most bullish thing I have heard for technology stocks in a long, long time.


  1. Absa-frickin-loutely!
    It’s great to be a contrarian when reading pundits, isn’t it?
    When I first started reading IG, I thought the same thing about some of your pronouncements, but I think you’ve toned down the bear-ishness in the last year.

  2. I would put more weight in the contrarian value of his statement if it weren’t for the fact that his column makes absolutely no sense at all.
    He doesn’t seem to understand the difference between a bubble (which has very particular characteristics) and the normal development and adoption curve of a new technology. For example, he seems to consider the plethora of personal computing systems that existed just after the invention of the PC back in the 1980’s – such as Wang etc – to have constituted a ‘bubble’ that finally ‘crashed’ when everyone had standardized on MS-DOS.
    Well yeah, if you consider that to have been a bubble, then I agree, we have another twenty or more ‘bubbles’ right now. Too bad that wasn’t actually a bubble.

  3. Really? John Dvorak?!! You’re going to refer to something a nincompoop like him says, where he actually refers to a possible widget bubble:
    I cannot see the widget scene going crazy, and the jury is still out on toolbars. But there is the potential for nuttiness, I think.
    It’s funny how he mislabels fads as bubbles and the article reads like a satire by the end, where he tries to point out future bubbles but clearly has no idea where technology is going. I know you didn’t link to him but you must have posted this because it was a slow day and you felt you had to post something. The best response to Dvorak is to ignore him completely, which I was doing quite well before this post. I hope this blog will stay Dvorak-free from here on out.

  4. BayAreaGuy says:

    “defunct pundit” ???
    That presupposes that he ever showed signs of intelligent life in the first place…