Contrary to the belief that bubbles are based on hype, Gurley asserts they are a byproduct of a real technological breakthrough. The initial, genuine value attracts talent and capital, which then draws in speculators and 'fools' who create the bubble. The underlying technology's reality is the catalyst.

The current AI spending spree by tech giants is historically reminiscent of the railroad and fiber-optic bubbles. These eras saw massive, redundant capital investment based on technological promise, which ultimately led to a crash when it became clear customers weren't willing to pay for the resulting products.

History shows that transformative technologies like railroads and the internet often create market bubbles. Investors can lose tremendous amounts of capital on overpriced assets, even while the technology itself fundamentally rewires the economy and creates massive societal value. The two outcomes are not mutually exclusive.

Venture capitalist Seth Levine argues that bubbles are an inevitable, and even productive, part of the innovation cycle. While many investments will fail, the frenzy ensures massive capital flows into transformational technologies like AI, allowing the market to eventually find the winning companies and ideas.

The Railway Mania of the 1840s proves that a world-changing technology can still lead to a catastrophic investment bubble. Despite railways transforming society, massive over-investment and hype caused an 85% collapse in share prices, wiping out fortunes and illustrating the danger of investing in frenzied sectors.

The current massive capital expenditure on AI infrastructure, like data centers, mirrors the railroad boom. These are poor long-term investments with low returns. When investors realize this, it will trigger a market crash on the scale of 1929, after which the real value-creating companies will emerge.

A genuine technological wave, like AI, creates rapid wealth, which inherently attracts speculators. Therefore, bubble-like behavior is a predictable side effect of a real revolution, not proof that the underlying technology is fake. The two phenomena come together as a pair.

Gurley posits that a bubble isn't a sign that a technology is fake. Citing economist Carlotta Perez, he argues that if a tech wave is real and generates wealth quickly, it will inevitably attract speculators and charlatans, making a bubble an expected consequence of its success.

Howard Marks distinguishes between two bubble types. "Mean reversion" bubbles (e.g., subprime mortgages) create no lasting value. In contrast, "inflection bubbles" (e.g., railroads, internet, AI) fund the necessary, often money-losing, infrastructure that accelerates technological progress for society, even as they destroy investor wealth.