What if...the Dot Com Bust never happened?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rasmasyean, Oct 9, 2010.

  1. rasmasyean macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #1
    I was looking at some historical data and it appears that ever since the beginning of the 90's there was a steady and steep growth all the way up to the "Dot Com Bust" in 2000 where it can be argued that it was a worse "relative" recession compared to what we experienced these couple of years.

    Ever since that "event", we never really recovered our pace and any temporary "gain" was just a pale comparison to what was before. I'm sure much of that "former gain" that disappeared teleported to China and the rest of the third world...much of it in the form of cheap manufacture of age old industrial goods.

    What do you think would have happened if the Dot Com Bust didn't happen?

    Would we now have average 100 Gbps?
    Perhaps our phones would be videoconferencing devices as a norm?
    Maybe electric cars would have 300 mile batteries?
    Maybe powerful computing would cure cancer / aids?
    Our refrigerators talk to us?
    Our pet robot makes us coffee in the morning?

    What do YOU think? Doom projections welcome too for you pessimists who need to let it out!
    Discuss... :)
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    It had to happen. That bubble was unsustainable. There's no "what if" to discuss, honestly.
     
  3. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #3
    That's not what I meant. The bubble was only toward the end. Prior to that growth was steady for nearly 10 years. The question is not "What if the Dot Com Bubble sustained?". It's "What if the bubble never happened?"
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    Ah, got it. Who knows? I think it would have happened no matter what. We're people and we make mistakes.
     
  5. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
  6. davidwarren macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    #6
  7. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #7
    How are you reading that? It looks to me that we actually grew steadily since like the 70's practically until 2000. In addition, that chart looks logarithmic. Which means in 2008, we really really sucked bad....compared to the prior 25 years before 2000. If you just take a "ruler" or something and place it on that chart, you can see that we should be slightly off the chart above that 5500 y-axis if we had sustained "normal growth". This is what I'm talking about. It's almost as if this is the dawn of the collapse of the USA! :(
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    The logarithmic section is precisely what constitutes the "bubble". People poured too much money they did not have into something they did not understand.
     
  9. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #9
    If you are trying to suggest that market indices correspond to technological advancement, I believe you are terribly off base. Indices like DJIA, NASDAQ and S&P track profitability. Some types of technological advances actually work against upward movement of these indices. Numbers almost never a very complete picture, especially when distilled down so much.
     
  10. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #10
    The dot come era was just a way for people to invest their money, if not for the dot com something else would have gotten top heavy and the market would still have collapsed. There were a lot of empty promises in fast money with no way to get a return on investment. It really was the same thing as the housing bubble just different players.
     
  11. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #11
    I'd party like it's 1999
     
  12. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #12
    Was it actually different players? Seems to me it was the same players, just different pieces.
     
  13. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #13
    Worse than that, it's the same reasons every time. Too much faith is put into a venture that people do not understand the real capacity to generate growth. All feel that the growth will be endless. Gold rush, black tuesday, dot com, housing market... you name it.
     
  14. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #14
    The dotcom boom really could not have not happened. It was a culmination of boomer expectations and the failure of reaganomics. The boomers wanted it all. When technology failed to be their salvation, they turned to that perennial rags to riches myth. The stock market and housing.

    I've always said that the US is the land of extremes. Until that ends, I don't believe that we will ever be able to stop this rollercoaster.
     
  15. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #15
    Same chart in linear...much better visually shows the extremity of the decline.

    * edit...doesn't seem to get the date range right in the link, just drag the slider.
     
  16. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #16
    I disagree with that assessment. I think on average "profitability" has a lot to do with technological advancement. Maybe once in a lifetime there's a "rule breaker breakthru in physics as we know it", but the overall momentum of advancement is highly influenced by investment opportunity.

    There would be no Google if someone didn't "see the light" and give them free money. There would be no Tesla, if some kid who founded Paypal wasn't left off with a billion dollars. Especially if you're talking about venture capitalists (who may have got out of hand in the dot com rainbow), they make a big impact on whether the windmill and flexible solar panel makes it to practicality...or stays inside some professor's cabinets for 10 more years.
     
  17. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #17
    Do you think that perhaps the media fuels that in large part? They always try to oversimplify stories and dramatize everything so the common person would be compeled to read and get exited about these things. Rarely do you see a "real analysis" because most of their writers don't even understand it themselves. And most ppl don't read "Ph.D. published" economic reports so they just go by what the News tells them.
     
  18. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #18
    Okay, this is sort of a math thing. "Steady" annual growth is logarithmic by definition. To say "the bubble was only towards the end" is to misunderstand a bubble. There's always a knee in the curve, and it is the inevitable product of all that apparently "steady" growth that leads up to it. "Steady" growth is the opposite of sustainable.

    Lee was right on the money in the very first reply. To ask what would have happened if the dot-com bust hadn't happened is no different from asking what would have happened to the cancer patient if the cancer had kept growing without killing him. Taking unconstrained growth for granted is the terminal assumption.
     
  19. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #19
    The big wigs moving the massive amounts of cash aren't the ones buying into that hype, they're creating it.
     
  20. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #20
    If you are implying that they manipulate the market...that's actually illegal. In order to do something like that with any sure degree of success, you would have to coordinate it between many players secretly without any evidence that you've talked to eachother. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's pretty difficult to get away with.
     
  21. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #21
    No, I'm not talking about market manipulation. People are driven by gains despite the risk. The smart ones bail before everyone else.
     
  22. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #22
    And others bite and don't let go like when my Uncle bought ten thousand AAPL shares in 1997 at ~$4 a share, needless to say he isn't poor (still owns them). He's also been kicked out of Casinos for playing too well (Mathematics professor)
     
  23. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #23
    He uses his mathematical acumen to lose less money than others?
     
  24. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #24
    Maybe he's a card counter? They hate when people do that. :p

    It makes sense, being that he's good with numbers. :D
     
  25. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #25
    There was actually a movie on that about some MIT Math Professor and his students going to Vegas or something...based on a true story. The were in a sense "cheating" by the techniques they were using ... according to the casinos anyway.
     

Share This Page