Jerking off.

What exactly is the deal with the “Are We in a Bubble” symposium? Is there a point to this conversation?

What started with a soft spoken debate seems to be going religious. It’s not enough to have just a point of view anymore, you need to subscribe to a camp.  You either think we are about to burst, or the exact opposite.

It’s not that I don’t have my own point of view, of course. Personally, I think some portions of the tech market are somewhat inflated with gold diggers. I see investments in “over valued” start-ups (can someone explain what “over valued” means exactly? over valued compared to what? to the personal taste of the critique?). I see a lot of activity in what seems to be over saturated niches and in technology that will not mature so fast. Most importantly, I see a lot of desire for short term short cuts.

On the other hand, I see so much exciting stuff out there. So many bright, thinking entrepreneurs and so much venture capital - 2 sides that still, for the most part, simply fail to meet. I see so much need for better communications, information management, medical solutions and programs, fun and entertainment, recreation, financial and equity management, personal accomplishment and so much more.  

The debate is not about a bubble but about the road to success - it’s length, it’s mapping, it’s challenges. Long distance runners don’t see a bubble and don’t care for the debate. The term “Bubble” is abusive because it overshadows the industry instead of referring to what it should refer to - the potential for short term speculations.

While this debate is important, it is secondary to the whole scene.