Major tech companies are investing in their own customers, creating a self-reinforcing loop of capital that inflates demand and valuations. This dangerous practice mirrors the vendor financing tactics of the dot-com era (e.g., Nortel), which led to a systemic collapse when external capital eventually dried up.

Today's massive AI company valuations are based on market sentiment ("vibes") and debt-fueled speculation, not fundamentals, just like the 1999 internet bubble. The market will likely crash when confidence breaks, long before AI's full potential is realized, wiping out many companies but creating immense wealth for those holding the survivors.

Tech giants are shifting from asset-light models to massive capital expenditures, resembling utility companies. This is a red flag, as historical data shows that heavy investment in physical assets—unlike intangible assets—tends to predict future stock underperformance.

The market capitalization of the world's largest companies is overwhelmingly derived from non-physical assets like brand, intellectual property, and customer goodwill. Selling all of Coca-Cola's factories would yield far less value than retaining ownership of the name alone, proving that intangible meaning is the primary driver of modern enterprise value.

Traditional valuation metrics ignore the most critical drivers of success: leadership, brand, and culture. These unquantifiable assets are not on the balance sheet, causing the best companies to appear perpetually overvalued to conventional analysts. This perceived mispricing creates the investment opportunity.

During the bubble, a lack of profits was paradoxically an advantage for tech stocks. It removed traditional valuation metrics like P/E ratios that would have anchored prices to reality. This "valuation vacuum" allowed investors' imaginations and narratives to drive stock prices to speculative heights.

The dot-com era was not fueled by pure naivete. Many investors and professionals were fully aware that valuations were disconnected from reality. The prevailing strategy was to participate in the mania with the belief that they could sell to a "greater fool" before the inevitable bubble popped.

The modern internet economy runs on an "attention market" where viral narratives attract talent and capital, often independent of underlying business fundamentals. This accelerates innovation but risks misallocating resources toward fleeting trends, replacing traditional price signals with attention metrics as the driver for investment.

The dot-com bubble didn't create wealth in 1999; it destroyed it. Generational wealth came from buying and holding survivors like Amazon *after* its stock had fallen 95%. The winning strategy isn't timing the crash, but surviving it and holding quality assets through the long recovery.