And you do recognize the context of those words was 15 years ago at this point?
> was exactly a Ponzi scheme in that sense, even if it wasn't a deliberate scam
There are better terms of art to describe the scenario. If we lacked for those words I might grant you this point, but since we don't, I find the description lacking in precision if not completely faulty.
> the more "normal" reason that they just don't gain traction.
Is that actually the "normal reason" most businesses fail? I'm not sure it is.
Language is fluid, and many of words got their very known & popular meanings later, when people used for things that it didn't exactly mean what it was initially intended to, and it got popular.
People are ever less empathetic and sociable, this being the reason for such comments.
In this case dotcom investing was so stupid that it should have been recognized as stupid at the time, without hindsight. For someone who lost money, gave bad advice etc. insisting that they didn't fall for a Ponzi scheme means representing themselves as less terrible investors, regardless of facts.
Words have meaning in context, and calling something a "Ponzi scheme" these days means any pyramid-like system that only works as long as new investors come to the table, because that new investor money is the sole source of gains for earlier investors. But once you run out of new investors, which is inevitable, the whole thing collapses. What pg described was exactly a Ponzi scheme in that sense, even if it wasn't a deliberate scam. And that's very different from other types of business ventures that eventually fail because of the more "normal" reason that they just don't gain traction.