My memories of the 90's bubble:

* Extended friends and family, none of whom worked in tech, were all considering investing in tech stocks.

* For that matter: everyone I knew was investing in equities.

* Largely profitless Internet brands bought up most of the Superbowl ad inventory

* Startups were funded whose business models were dominated by inventory and logistics costs

* Startup marketing (not just promotion, but all of marketing) was focused on epic launch events

* Companies with no profits routinely had public offerings

* Seemingly hopeless capital-intensive ideas (like 1 hour free delivery of candy bars) were kept afloat for years by investment dollars

* Most American consumers had limited access to the network, and nobody had ubiquitous mobile access

* You could close your eyes and fall backwards into an A-round (for instance: we managed to do it), which was the de facto standard first financing vehicle for startups

* The major investment banks not only fought over tech IPOs, but housed famous talking heads who spoke on TV and wrote op-eds cheerleading specific tech startups

* To get a web app launched, you bought several Sun servers and a 3-4RU Cisco router, each of which cost mid-5-figures. Oracle was your database.

* Cisco would "sell" you routers in exchange for company equity, and book the sale as revenue

* Totally reasonable for a startup to write its whole deployment stack, including application logic, in C

* Virtually all software development was done waterfall-style, frequently with an MBA calling the shots

* Just-formed startups had 5+ person "marketing" teams and 2-3 person "bizdev" teams

* $100k+ logos, $75k/yr to PR/branding firms

* Startups promoted themselves with print ads in magazines. That was a normal thing to do.

This is just a random list; I'm sure others here have better points. Writing it, I'm struck by how much worse startups and startup business practices were while generating so much more interest from the broader market than they do now.

I have a hard time believing that anyone who thinks we're in another dot-com bubble was actually working during the dot-com bubble.

The article itself is almost offensively bad. The fed funds rate was over 5% during the dot-com bubble. Stocks are doing well now, but so is everything else, and the notable tech stocks helping drive the market are drowning in cash that they're generating directly from consumers. "We're due for a downturn"? What does that even mean? Buy puts? Salaries are high? Maybe we're having an easier time paying engineers now that we're not using that money to buy TV ads or pay MBAs to "monetize eyeballs with brand equity". The rest of the article seems to be a critique of how big companies are choosing to spend their money --- but whether or not you think Yahoo should buy Tumblr or Twitter should be giving VP/Engs 10MM in stock, companies making decisions with their own money isn't what characterizes a stock bubble.

Obviously, what this article is really trying to do is to make a prose slideshow with links to other Business Insider articles, because its author had nothing better to write today. Jose, you're not dumb. You can find better articles than this. Unless this submission was sarcastic, in which case, well played.