There's significantly more information in 2018 or even 2008 to indicate Amazon was worth that valuation. A companies potential has to be adjusted by risk if you want a good valuation, and in 1999 there just wan't enough evidence. This is validated by it dropping dramatically after the bubble popping.

In fact they were only saved because he had secured financing mere months before the collapse, had that not happened Amazon would be listed among the likes of Pets.com.

True.

But, the 60-minutes reporter didn't justify his claims based on risk or on math. He was skeptical because Sears is huge, and to him it was laughable [and yes, he did literally laugh many times in that interview] that Amazon can someday be worth more than Sears. To him it was "messed up", and a sign of things wrong with the world

Only is a big caveat, for the "dotcom" that survived the bust and became the biggest company in the world.

Even if they were established they’d have a tough time getting financing in the .com crash. A bit of luck is always necessary.

In 1999, AMZN peaked ar $80.

Two years later it was trading at $10, and didn’t recover until 2007.

The interviewer was right; Amazon was over valued.

Or was it radically undervalued in 2001?

I'd say it wasn't, because AWS didn't exist to be undervalued as a business factor.

What kind of profits were they showing in 2001? I'm not going to look it up, but I'm sure they were negative. There were a lot of people back then who couldn't figure out how Amazon would ever make money when they sold everything at a loss.

You can’t proclaim it a right decision or wrong decision without comparing exits as well. It’s the delta that’s meaningful, not the value at that single point in time.

Amazon worth more than Sears? Can you imagine?

All things are clear with the power of hindsight. But if it were so simple you'd already know which company to throw your money at today and be a billionaire in a decade. Do you?

True, but why laugh at Amazon? What can you possibly gain by picking on the "little guy"?

The reporter is supposed to be an expert in this field. That's why 60 minutes hired him, instead of someone else, for the job. I am sure there was no shortage of applicants who wanted this job.

Why couldn't he be more open-minded and supportive of a startup like Amazon? Instead of constantly laughing at Amazon and Jeff Bezos (like his choice of cars)

So why be a snob? As you said, no one knows what will happen. Why laugh at the little guy? You don't know what's going to happen

Economics Nobel price winner Paul Krugman once said that the internet’s effect on the world economy would be no greater than the fax machine's. I don't expect a journalist to perform better.

Being open minded and supportive is probably a stretch when something sounds so outrageous that you simply can't believe it's anchored to reality in any way. I assume this is how it felt back then. Probably there were situations where you yourself became derisive of certain things you simply couldn't conceive could be different only to be proven wrong some time later.