I respect putting in writing for all to see your predictions for the future on a controversial topic. Not easy to do. However there are a large number of compa

I respect putting in writing for all to see your predictions for the future on a controversial topic. Not easy to do. However there are a large number of companies lumped in together which sort makes this a hard metric to measure definitively. The logic seems to follow in the following way: "A lot of people believe there's a bubble." -> "Those people believe all new techy companies are part of this bubble." -> "Those people think all new techy companies are overvalued." I don't think that that logic is accurate. I think it's totally possible for somebody to believe (as I do) that a large number of tech companies are overvalued (Pinterest), while simultaneously believing that there are some that are not (SpaceX). So predicting that that entire group will exceed $200B in value in five years is making a broader argument that some tech companies that have already exhibited an unambiguous amount of success will continue that trend in the next five years. But what if four of those companies go belly-up or drop in value by 50%, while one outlier becomes the next Google? Is the argument correct? Technically speaking, yes. But I think in that case the overall point would be proven wrong. Ultimately I think the entire "bubble" conversation centers on the argument of whether private tech companies that are < 5-10 years old who's primary product is a captive audience of users is overvalued when a single group of VC's choose to value them in the 9-10 figures. It isn't bubble in the dot-com/real estate sense that actually has a meaningful negative impact on the economy, but more or less a disagreement on whether that value would be proven on a public market after a meaningful amount of time.