It seems to me the only difference is whether the speaker is predisposed to not like the thing in question.
This leaves you with a surprisingly small amount of assets. Collectibles probably.
I think the epitome of greater fool is probably NFTs. Unlike a real piece of art you don't actually own anything unless additional value is conferred to you by owning it from the issuing entity, like say legal copyright over the referenced piece in question (if its art).
What is it that you actually own when you buy a physical art piece? Is it the actual canvas and the paint on top? If so then that is definitely not worth hundreds of thousands of dollars on its own. Or, more likely, is it the fact that you own the original, and that the artists could never make an exact replica, unlike with NFTs? Even though you can make an exact replica with NFTs, everybody agrees on the original, and therefore the exact replica has no value. With art you could make a near perfect replica, but everybody would still agree upon the original, and therefore the original is the one with real value. IMO NFTs and physical art are still very similar.
i.e your dumb ape picture could now suddenly become furry porn.
Real art (assuming proper steps to preserve and protect it) will remain as it was while it's in your care. You -own- it, you can take it where you please, store it how you please, etc.
NFTs aren't like real-art at all, they are at best analogous to in-game collectibles - entirely subject to ToS but even those are less predatory and ponzi-like than NFTs.
If you're referring to stocks and bonds, those can have objective value in the form of dividends and coupons.