Gah, this is even worse than I expected. > Paul, I like you, but (big but): the mortgage bubble of the 2000s didn’t have anything to do with increasing product

Gah, this is even worse than I expected. > Paul, I like you, but (big but): the mortgage bubble of the 2000s didn’t have anything to do with increasing productivity in a “new economy” or money being moved from bonds to stocks, and that bad boy busted like an adolescent’s pimple. Total non sequitur here. Bringing up the mortgage crisis is out of left field. Paul's statement regarded the comparison of today's tech startup market with that of the late 90s. Is Mr. Shazer making a new comparison of today's tech startup market to the mortgage crisis? I'm not sure. There's no there there. > Paul, JP Morgan just closed on a $1.2 billion fund for new tech startups. And many other banks are following suit, because that’s what banks do, just like they wear them. Carlyle and other buyout firms are swallowing up VC firms like a toothless prostitute. So, a little more than a few guys like Yuri Milner and Zuckerberg. Bandwagon != bubble. It could be that the tech startup market is still undervalued. Just noting that banks are investing in it does not make it a bubble. Of course there is the question of bias. Mr. Graham clearly stands to benefit from higher startup valuations. Tell us something we don't know and with less hyperbole. > There is a bubble. And it’s getting bigger. An effectively bald though entirely anticipated assertion.