Wow, okay... the first sentence reads so straightforwardly and the following one is like some kind of reverse judo takedown maneuver. The essential point is to correctly interpret who exactly the "no one" in question is referring to.
Not quite. There's a difference between an overpriced market and a bubble.
A market can be overpriced when the consensus view is that stocks are more valuable than is actually realistic. When more sober judgment sets in, stocks go down to more appropriate levels.
In contrast, a bubble is when stocks are going up, and so everybody wants to buy stocks because they're going up, and so stocks continue to go up because everybody's buying them, and so people continue to want to buy them because they're going up. It's not a bubble until you get that positive feedback going.
If you think the value will continue to rise, then the price you pay now is "cheap" compared to the future value. It's a really weird way to phrase it though.
I agree with your point about "cheap" being used more traditionally in that an investor may think the price they're paying is high compared to what the stock price should be based on fundamental analysis. That situation isn't the same as a bubble (although it might happen in a bubble).
No. In a bubble, everyone believes something is undervalued and is desperate to get in. 'I need to buy Pets.com at $100 because in a month it'll be $1000!' Or 'I need to buy Bitcoin at $350 because it's taking off to the moon!' This causes the general surge in prices where everyone buys in because now it's cheap ('the Communist Party has guaranteed stocks as an investment, so I can't lose by buying now'), eventually leading to the crash when suddenly people begin fervently believing everything is way too expensive (and so they should sell).
Well anyways, I don't think the question of "cheap" vs. "expensive" is really appropriate when talking about market dynamics. Many market participants think explicitly in terms of how much momentum they think is left in the given trend.
I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment, but it doesn't seem to be a typo. If people _did_ think that tech valuations were cheap, then he's saying that would be a sign of a bubble, because it would mean that people think these companies are undervalued [when they potentially aren't undervalued].
I don't believe so. In a bubble, people think that the current climate is more favorable than it is in reality. So they view assets as cheap when in fact they may be overpriced.
Is this a typo?
s/cheap/expensive/ would make more sense, no?