It's astonishing how virtually all of the debate around "the new tech bubble" completely ignores the influence of monetary policy. There are lots of bubbles tha

It's astonishing how virtually all of the debate around "the new tech bubble" completely ignores the influence of monetary policy. There are lots of bubbles that have been inflated by QE-Infinity. The tech bubble is nowhere near the biggest, but that doesn't mean it isn't a bubble. > The current freneticism is a very different animal from the original dot-com boom. For one thing, the companies racing to go public this September actually have revenues and what passes for real business models, something that was very often simply not the case in 1999 and early 2000. Revenue? Great. But at $50+/share, FB has a PE ratio of well over 200. Being able to calculate a PE ratio is nice though. Salesforce, for instance, which has a market cap of $31 billion, doesn't even have a PE ratio because it has no earnings. Are Facebook, Salesforce, et al. worthless? Of course not. But if the entire stock market wasn't being propped up by the Fed, you wouldn't see these types of valuations, and that would have a cascading effect on the entire tech ecosystem for a variety of reasons. > The current boom isn’t a flash in the pan, doomed to disappoint arriviste gold miners. It’s here to stay. A mature Internet economy is generating huge riches, and it is remaking the face of San Francisco and the larger Bay Area in the process. The internet is here to stay, and there will continue to be riches generated by it, but it's extremely foolish to believe that the internet economy is disconnected from the real economy, which is precisely what so many, the author of this article included, seem to be doing.