5 ms·

The economist agrees with you. https://www.economist.com/news/business/21735029-stockmarket-investors-are-wrong-expect-enormous-surge-advertising-revenues-some

The economist agrees with you. https://www.economist.com/news/business/21735029-stockmarket-investors-are-wrong-expect-enormous-surge-advertising-revenues-something https://www.economist.com/news/business/21735029-stockmarket... "Imagine if advertising spending really did rise to 1.8% of GDP in America by 2027. Most firms’ costs would have to rise, cutting total corporate profits (excluding those of ad platforms) from about 6.5% to 5.7% of GDP, the kind of drop normally associated with a recession. Alternatively, imagine if the firms in the S&P 500 index (excluding ad platforms) bore all the additional cost of the advertising boom. Their combined return on capital would drop from the present 10% to 8%, at or just below their cost of capital. America Inc would go from being the world’s greatest profit machine to flirting with Japanese-style financial-zombie status"

rgbrenner 9y ago
It also says this though: American advertising revenues will rise from 1% of GDP today, to as much as 1.8% of GDP by 2027—a massive jump. Since 1980 the average has been 1.3% So here we are at 1%.. and the historical average is 1.3%... Can you be in a bubble, if it's currently below the historical average? If anything, I would say this is evidence that we are NOT in a bubble. The rest of that article is just speculation, based on growth that we may or may not see.