[RoddaWallPro]

I _kind of_ understand this one. You can think of a bubble as a market exploring a bunch of different possibilities, a lot of which may not work out. But the ones that do work out, they may go on to be foundational. Sort of like startups: you bet that most of them will fail, but that's okay, you're making bets!

The difference of course is that when a startup goes out of business, it's fine (from my perspective) because it was probably all VC money anyway and so it doesn't cause much damage, whereas the entire economy bubble popping causes a lot of damage.

I don't know that he's arguing that they are good, but rather that _some_ kinds of bubbles can have a lot of positive effects.

Maybe he's doing the same thing here, I don't know. I see the words "advertising would make X Product better" and I stop reading. Perhaps I am blindly following my own ideology here :shrug:.

[forrestpitz]

I also see the argument as a macro one not a micro one. Some bubbles in aggregate create breeding grounds for innovation (Hobart's point) and throw off externalities (like cheap freight rail in the US from the railroad bubble) ala Carlota Perez. That's not to say that there isn't individual suffering when the bubble pops but I read the argument as "it's not wholy defined by the individual suffering that happens"