That's presuming this is a "bubble" at all. It's not; the data doesn't support what you're proposing. That, or every time any single ridiculous transaction (or

That's presuming this is a "bubble" at all. It's not; the data doesn't support what you're proposing. That, or every time any single ridiculous transaction (or rejection) happens, we have to call it a bubble. Let's get serious here. SnapChat refusing $3 billion, while ridiculous, does not at all compare to the masses of VC cash going to thousands of companies with no idea about how they were going to make money at all. If you must compare them, compare them by scale. Today, we have a small handful of companies getting a lot of attention because of questionable financial dealings (whether it be IPO or the refusal of cash). In the '90s, the differences were much larger (presumption that putting "Internet" in front of any business idea would automatically mean IPO and great riches), and the number of businesses involved was much larger. That is why there is no bubble. When there is an actual bubble, I'll be more than happy to call it out. Some are bigger, some are smaller. To qualify as a "bubble," doesn't it have to involve a large segment of the industry, not just a handful of companies?