main difference between the late 90's and now is that, currently the tech companies are not offering anything innovating or life changing as similar to the internet. thats why valuations and dreaming about future tech are limited. you need a similar type catalyst to have people dream delusionally about the future and accept high valuations. If something similar to the internet that has similar innovative patterns comes onto the scene, then sure tech bubble can get underway. but valuations will be tame and range bound, thats why the market is dangerous.. since a large range bound market kills the breakout players. take a look at the 1965 chart, I use to think we were similar to 95, but I don't see anything revolutionary happening within the next few years. The biggest mental shift has been 70's style inflation acceptance. russia is even more dangerous, since they were able to convince the rest of the world that the dissolution of the USSR was going to lead to golden times. The dissolution could have as well been a plan to modernize their forces using a capitalistic model. You are seeing wisps of it now, with Russia pulling out of arms treaty regarding troop deployment on the borders with Europe. With Petro dollar wealth, and Russian technology prowess. The greatest threat to USA is still Russia.
late '90's we had glasnost and what seemed to be decreased military spending with budget surpluses. its the total opposite now, this age is reminding more of the 70's.
if some of these web 2.0 companies go public, we could have another mania in dot coms. Unfortunately google is one of the only companies that is public.
FIOS deployment currently limits tech innovation. Costs have to come down similar to telephone access. Plus processor speed has to ramped up even more to take advantage of the greater information load capacity to the home. Then large screen tech displays at home can increase communication visually instead of audio. Youtube is more creative then what is offered currently from the mundane shows piped into homes. People want entertainment on demand, and youtube offers the greatest amount of subject matter currently. google/youtube still have the edge. edit: what can lead to another tech explosion is processor speed ramp up by multiple folds that is abruptly brought onto the market, forcing everyone to buy the new computers. This gradual increase in processor speed isnt forcing anyone to dish out the expense. One can still get away with using computers 5 years old to surf the net. Microsoft operating systems are still very primitive in how they relate to a human user.
the problem with web 2.0 is that there aren't enough industry leaders facebook, youtube, myspace, and digg are the only big ones. There are a bunch of other web2.0 companies but they are substantially smaller and I wouldn't invest in them. Of the companies I listed only facebook and digg could go public and I would highly recommend investing in both of them at the IPO if they do go public.
microsoft should come up with a operating system for the home. They should partner with home builders to offer wiring solutions that will create a broadband home. they have to think beyond the box that sits on top of our desks to increase revenue.
ok thats it dumbass now i am gonna discredit you on every single post you make, (asw if thats a challenge everyone knows you are a fucking homo) I make (or lose) on a daily basis 5-20% of your entire networth, and you are calling me out?? I have seen pieces of shit before but you are WAAAAAAAY ahead of the game in that department. If Fesces had a name it would be stock trad3r.